NationStates Jolt Archive

So we have this story:

Enraged Parents Mobilize Over Pedophile's Web Site (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3451460&page=1)

Jack McClellan is an admitted pedophile who has been hiding in broad daylight.

"I find them physically more attractive than adult women," he told "Nightline." "The other thing would be the whole gamut of personality traits that is quite a difference from adults. The more lightheartedness, irreverence, playfulness, anarchy."
From the note attached to the picture we have this:

This photo released by the Santa Monica, Calif., police department shows Jack McClellan, a man who publicly claims to be a pedophile but insists that he's never molested a child. A temporary restraining order was granted Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Los Angeles, ordering McClellan to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under the age of 18 in California. McClellan, who was not in court, told The Associated Press he didn't learn of Friday's hearing in time to attend (Santa Monica PD/AP Photo)McClellan has broadcast his feelings on the Internet, where he has discussed locations to see children in public situations and has even posted photos of girls he liked. But despite his offensive words and actions, McClellan, apparently, has broken no law. He has, however, outraged two communities.
Is the restraining order a violation of his Rights'?

He started a web site:

Eventually, McClellan launched what he called the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Girl Love Web site. There, along with animated images of hearts, he would post the pictures he took of young girls at parks or festivals. Then he would rate how good these locations were for spotting so-called LGs -- little girls.

"I've never done anything illegal with girls," he told "Nightline."

McClellan said the site was aimed to serve other pedophiles. For two years, it was up and running, until this past March when a local Washington paper broke the story, forcing McClellan out of the shadows.
And he drew some fire from angry parents:

The attention brought more traffic to McClellan's Web site but not just from pedophiles -- shocked and angry parents began logging on as well.

"[I] saw the site, then the fear started welling up inside of me," said one Seattle mother, who saw a picture and details about her daughter.

"I'm mad," said another mother. "I'm mad that somebody can invade our lives like that way, in the way. And that it's OK. It's not OK."

Mothers were incensed. An anti-pedophile Web site -- www.JackMcClellan.com -- was created, and lawmakers got involved.
However, the bottom line is this:

However, it soon became clear that because McClellan is not a registered sex offender, has no sex crimes record and hasn't commited a crime, McLellan's Web site is actually protected by the First Amendment.
What say you NSG?

Tis wrong.

Portrait rights.

Portrait rights.
The right to take pictures?:confused:

Very creepy behavior indeed. But as long as he isn't acting on his impulses, it's all perfectly legal. However, if he's posting personal information on these children on his web site, they might be able to get him for invasion of privacy or exploiting a minor or some such.

There's nothing illegal about being a pedophile.

They could probably have a good argument for taking down content on the site, since it is unlikely to have appropriate permissions.

The right to take pictures?:confused:The right not to have your picture published without your permission.

Very creepy behavior indeed. But as long as he isn't acting on his impulses, it's all perfectly legal. However, if he's posting personal information on these children on his web site, they might be able to get him for invasion of privacy or exploiting a minor or some such.

This. Pedophilia is a mental disorder as stated in the DSM-IV. There is a difference between pedophilia and sexual offender/predator.

I will now go shower in boiling hot water.

Either free speech includes speech you don't like, or it's a sham and a lie. There are limits - advocating a specific illegal act, speaking so as to constitute an imminant threat to life and limb - but beyond that, no restraint of speech is either acceptable or necessary.

It's times like this that one wonders if all our personal freedoms are worth having creeps like this around. Unfortunately, they stay together or they die together. Which one will it be?

It's times like this that one wonders if all our personal freedoms are worth having creeps like this around. Unfortunately, they stay together or they die together. Which one will it be?

I'd rather have to deal with the existence of Fred Phelps and this asshole than lose my rights.

This story is two years old. I wonder what the outcome was?

I'd rather have to deal with the existence of Fred Phelps and this asshole than lose my rights.

Same here.

This story is two years old. I wonder what the outcome was?

A cursory search turns up nothing more recent than 2007.

The OP really had to dig to find this story. Perhaps he's just trying to stir up a shit storm for his own amusement.

Yeah, I mean, I know its shocking, but people who havent committed a crime have rights that entail them not being treated like theyve committed a crime!

However, if he's posting personal information on these children on his web site, they might be able to get him for invasion of privacy or exploiting a minor or some such.
Yeah, there is that...

This story is two years old. I wonder what the outcome was?

I would not be surprised if some nice friendly bigots got their pitchforks and torches and lynched him.

He should be put on a watchlist, at the very least. His website should be taken down, as I doubt parents would want pictures of the children on a website that 'aims to serve pedophiles".

"Aug. 6, 2007"?

Anyway, in my opinion he should not be treated as a criminal. For fuck's sake, I would hope we live in a society in which thoughts cannot cause legal action.

Someone uses his rights to create a website that is apparently entirely legal and everyone complains because its entirely immoral and wants it shut down anyway...

*sigh*

He took down his site is all I found out..

everyone's rights need to be protected.

This is one of those issues that are always going to be emotional and visceral no matter what.

Guy admitted he's a pedophile. He admits he's sexually attracted to children. Did he actually molest or rape a kid? That there is another matter.

Pedophiles ≠ Sex Offenders.

B can be A, but A aren't automatically B.

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime. Not all pedophiles have yet molested children, but that's sort of like saying that not everyone who wants commit murder has done it yet.

We do live in a society of laws, and one of the law's functions is to protect the rights of people. Does the pedophile have the right to his own thoughts? Sure, and in fact he is wholly responsible for them. Does he have the right to take pictures of random children in the park and put them on a pedophile website to feed and perpetuate their criminal desire?

This isn't about thought crime. If someone is depressed and expresses a desire to commit suicide, we as a society tend to want to prevent that from happening. If someone expresses a desire to assassinate the president, is it a violation of rights to pay attention and take steps to prevent it? I don't think so. It's actually in defense of our rights - as parents, perhaps, or just members of society - that we take safeguards against people who for whatever reason want to harm the children.

He should be put on a watchlist

For what? He hasnt committed a crime.

See, we have these things called rights, and the law, and...

For what? He hasnt committed a crime.

See, we have these things called rights, and the law, and...

It is more about bigotry than crime, methinks.

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime. Not all pedophiles have yet molested children, but that's sort of like saying that not everyone who wants commit murder has done it yet.

We do live in a society of laws, and one of the law's functions is to protect the rights of people. Does the pedophile have the right to his own thoughts? Sure, and in fact he is wholly responsible for them. Does he have the right to take pictures of random children in the park and put them on a pedophile website to feed and perpetuate their criminal desire?

This isn't about thought crime. If someone is depressed and expresses a desire to commit suicide, we as a society tend to want to prevent that from happening. If someone expresses a desire to assassinate the president, is it a violation of rights to pay attention and take steps to prevent it? I don't think so. It's actually in defense of our rights - as parents, perhaps, or just members of society - that we take safeguards against people who for whatever reason want to harm the children.

I say we outlaw all violent video games! They are merely outlets to express a desire to commit a crime.

I say we outlaw all violent video games! They are merely outlets to express a desire to commit a crime.

You know, if we put this guy on a watch list, can we put everybody who has ever had thoughts of overthrowing the government on one too?

I mean, they both think about committing crimes...

You know, if we put this guy on a watch list, can we put everybody who has ever had thoughts of overthrowing the government on one too?

I mean, they both think about committing crimes...

Well, at that rate, we are going to have put me on a watch list, and outlaw NSG because it is encouraging me to think violent thoughts about many of the posters.

Society needs pull the righteous broomstick out of its ass, and stop punishing persons due to their "morality" (in est, their "ickiness").

Society needs pull the righteous broomstick out of its ass, and stop punishing persons due to their "morality" (in est, their "ickiness").

Eh, guys who actually touch kids should be thrown in jail.

He should be put on a watchlist, at the very least. His website should be taken down, as I doubt parents would want pictures of the children on a website that 'aims to serve pedophiles".

I agree that the website should be taken down, but why should he be put on a watchlist? He has not been charged with a crime, to my knowledge. Therefore, why should he be treated like a criminal?

I agree that the website should be taken down, but why should he be put on a watchlist? He has not been charged with a crime, to my knowledge. Therefore, why should he be treated like a criminal?

Why does the site violate the law?

You know, if we put this guy on a watch list, can we put everybody who has ever had thoughts of overthrowing the government on one too?

I mean, they both think about committing crimes...

While I don't support a "pedophile watchlist," at the same time, it is very silly to try to suggest that there isn't a monumental difference in degree between taking pictures of actual children and putting them on a website discussing how you'd like to fuck them, along with advice for other pedophiles, many of whom may not be so law-abiding as you, about the best places to find kids, and playing video games or "having thoughts." Can't we try to come up with comparisons that are, y'know, vaguely comparable?

Eh, guys who actually touch kids should be thrown in jail.

No shit, but we are talking about issuing a restraining order on someone for his fucking thoughts.

While I don't support a "pedophile watchlist," at the same time, it is very silly to try to suggest that there isn't a monumental difference in degree between taking pictures of actual children and putting them on a website discussing how you'd like to fuck them, along with advice for other pedophiles, many of whom may not be so law-abiding as you, about the best places to find kids, and playing video games or "having thoughts." Can't we try to come up with comparisons that are, y'know, vaguely comparable?

In both situations, youve committed no crime but are talking/thinking about committing one. Would comparing it to Stormfront be a better comparison?

While I don't support a "pedophile watchlist," at the same time, it is very silly to try to suggest that there isn't a monumental difference in degree between taking pictures of actual children and putting them on a website discussing how you'd like to fuck them, along with advice for other pedophiles, many of whom may not be so law-abiding as you, about the best places to find kids, and playing video games or "having thoughts." Can't we try to come up with comparisons that are, y'know, vaguely comparable?

GTA can easily be compared, along with other games like Hitman.

GTA can easily be compared, along with other games like Hitman.

...only if you have something so seriously wrong with you that you don't understand the difference between actual people and cartoons.

Yeah, I mean, I know its shocking, but people who havent committed a crime have rights that entail them not being treated like theyve committed a crime!

This /\

Yeah, the guys a bit creepy, but as long as he isn't acting on his desires, what's the problem?

GTA can easily be compared

I think the analogy you're trying to make is "this website teaches paedophiles how to abuse children and escape the law. GTA teaches carjackers how to steal cars and avoid the law".

It'd be a perfect analogy, if in real life I could drive my car into a garage, wait 30 seconds, have it spray painted, then get SWAT off my ass. However since GTA, Hitman, and other video games do not resemble real life in the slightest and as such don't provide any "training" or "advice" on how to commit actual crimes, whereas this website...does...

No, no it can not. Unless of course you think Need for Speed compares to an automotive maintenance manual.

...only if you have something so seriously wrong with you that you don't understand the difference between actual people and cartoons.

"Cartoons" (video games) are becoming more realistic all the time, and many use footage with live actors.

I say we outlaw all violent video games! They are merely outlets to express a desire to commit a crime.

That's a rather false analogy. Very few gamers have a desire (in the sense that a pedophile does) to behave violently - every single pedophile has a sexual desire for children by definition.

In both situations, youve committed no crime but are talking/thinking about committing one. Would comparing it to Stormfront be a better comparison?
See, there's a big difference here. "Raping young girls is fun!" is what we call free speech. Raping young girls if fun and here's how to do it so you don't get caught" is something we call "aiding and abetting". And yeah, it's a crime.

You know, if we put this guy on a watch list, can we put everybody who has ever had thoughts of overthrowing the government on one too?

I mean, they both think about committing crimes...

I am pretty sure they all already are on watch lists.

While I don't support a "pedophile watchlist," at the same time, it is very silly to try to suggest that there isn't a monumental difference in degree between taking pictures of actual children and putting them on a website discussing how you'd like to fuck them, along with advice for other pedophiles, many of whom may not be so law-abiding as you, about the best places to find kids, and playing video games or "having thoughts." Can't we try to come up with comparisons that are, y'know, vaguely comparable?

I am pretty sure "Parks/malls/parking lots/movie theatres are great places to find kids" is not something you really have to tell some one.

See, there's a big difference here. "Raping young girls is fun!" is what we call free speech. Raping young girls if fun and here's how to do it so you don't get caught" is something we call "aiding and abetting". And yeah, it's a crime.

I never defended his website. Im saying he shouldnt be on a watchlist.

Unless we're going to put every member of stormfront on a watchlist too.


As an aside, does his website actually say anything like "Raping young girls if fun [I]and here's how to do it so you don't get caught"?

"Cartoons" (video games) are becoming more realistic all the time, and many use footage with live actors.

are the cars actual cars that are actually getting stolen? Can you car jack a tank by running up to it and hitting the "A" button? Can you commit assassinations by pulling the trigger button on your game controller?

No?

Then no, they're not in any way comparable. And the fact that they use actors is not relevant. You don't learn how to steal cars by playing GTA. You don't learn how to commit covert assassinations by playing Hitman. You don't learn how to beat back the demonic hordes of hell by playing Doom.

You can actually learn how to rape children and get away with it from a website that provides tips on how to rape children and get away with it.

And the fact of the matter is, there's such a huge and obvious difference between those two things, that your apparent failure to grasp it proves that you either have serious, serious problems with your perceptions of reality, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

I just love how this modern society has all ready established the concept of Precrime without Couchhopper Cruise playing a significant role.

I want to ask a question about "watch lists". Let's accept two things as a premise:

1) police have generally limited resources

2) criminals of certain types have a tendency to demonstrate certain characteristics, at least at a higher or more obvious rate than non criminals

With that in mind, what's wrong with a watch list? I'm not talking about violating anyone's constitutional rights. I'm not talking about making him stop what he's saying. I'm talking about devoting additional resources to legally monitor someone who, based on his behavior, appears to be more likely to commit violent crimes?

What, at its core, is wrong with that?

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime.

No, it isn't.

I want to ask a question about "watch lists". Let's accept two things as a premise:

1) police have generally limited resources

2) criminals of certain types have a tendency to demonstrate certain characteristics, at least at a higher or more obvious rate than non criminals

With that in mind, what's wrong with a watch list? I'm not talking about violating anyone's constitutional rights. I'm not talking about making him stop what he's saying. I'm talking about devoting additional resources to legally monitor someone who, based on his behavior, appears to be more likely to commit violent crimes?

What, at its core, is wrong with that?

Because it's basically a state sponsored Scarlet Letter than invites all sorts of social stigma, especially when it comes to someone who has not committed an actual crime and is thus not a registered sex offender.

Not only that, it's extreme nanny-state mentality that's not 100% guaranteed to prevent crime.

If we put Muslims on a watchlist just because Islamic terrorism happens to make big news headlines just imagine the vast resource drain and enforcement slowdown that would cause as every single Muslim out there was monitored because they're "more likely to commit violent crimes"?

No, it isn't.

well, in a round about way it is. Not so much a desire to commit "a crime" but a desire to engage in activities that are illegal. Perhaps a bit of a semantics argument, but the point is true. Were a paedophile to act on his desires, he would be committing a criminal act. So it is a desire to commit a crime. Though the desire is not to do it because it's a crime, in consequence that's what it works out to be.

I want to ask a question about "watch lists". Let's accept two things as a premise:

1) police have generally limited resources

2) criminals of certain types have a tendency to demonstrate certain characteristics, at least at a higher or more obvious rate than non criminals

With that in mind, what's wrong with a watch list? I'm not talking about violating anyone's constitutional rights. I'm not talking about making him stop what he's saying. I'm talking about devoting additional resources to legally monitor someone who, based on his behavior, appears to be more likely to commit violent crimes?

What, at its core, is wrong with that?

Hmm, I guess I'd have to say it's the slippery slope. Who gets to determine whether behavior makes one more likely to commit violent crimes, what behaviors, and to what extent must it be displayed in order to warrant usage of those resources to monitor.

But while there's room for argument there, I find it hard to see one in this case.

Because it's basically a state sponsored Scarlet Letter than invites all sorts of social stigma, especially when it comes to someone who has not committed an actual crime and is thus not a registered sex offender.

Not only that, it's extreme nanny-state mentality that's not 100% guaranteed to prevent crime.

If we put Muslims on a watchlist just because Islamic terrorism happens to make big news headlines just imagine the vast resource drain and enforcement slowdown that would cause as every single Muslim out there was monitored because they're "more likely to commit violent crimes"?

Combine that with the fact that there isnt really a way to do it legally that doesnt run a huge risk of crossing over into harassment. Besides, what would the 'watch list' entail? Routine searches of his house? A police tail now and again? Otherwise, its pretty much useless anyway.

Because it's basically a state sponsored Scarlet Letter than invites all sorts of social stigma, especially when it comes to someone who has not committed an actual crime and is thus not a registered sex offender.

Why should internal police procedure be any matter of public record? In fact, if the government does maintain "watch lists" (and they probably do) I'd be quite happy NOT making them public. If it was, it'd rather defeat the purpose

Not only that, it's extreme nanny-state mentality that's not 100% guaranteed to prevent crime.

Nothing is gaurenteed to prevent crime. I also don't find anything "nanny-state" about the police doing what they're constitutionally permitted to do.

If we put Muslims on a watchlist just because Islamic terrorism happens to make big news headlines just imagine the vast resource drain and enforcement slowdown that would cause as every single Muslim out there was monitored because they're "more likely to commit violent crimes"?

Of course that would be nonsensical. It's also fortunately not even the slightest bit what I'm advocating, and is therefore a rather big straw man. I'm not talking about "terrorists were muslim, and therefore muslims are terrorists".

I'm talking about identifying particular personality traits and activities that certain criminals of certain kinds have a tendency to engage in, above and beyond that of non criminals, and focusing a degree of resources on those.

I'm not talking about abstract notions of "being muslim".

well, in a round about way it is. Not so much a desire to commit "a crime" but a desire to engage in activities that are illegal.

Nope. Still not true.

A pedophile can be aroused by children, sexually, without ever wanting to actually do anything about it. Thus - no desire to do acts that are illegal, no desire to comit a crime.

I can find a woman sexually attractive without ever wanting to have sex with her.

Nope. Still not true.

A pedophile can be aroused by children, sexually, without ever wanting to actually do anything about it. Thus - no desire to do acts that are illegal, no desire to comit a crime.

I can find a woman sexually attractive without ever wanting to have sex with her.

....touche salesman.

Nope. Still not true.

A pedophile can be aroused by children, sexually, without ever wanting to actually do anything about it. Thus - no desire to do acts that are illegal, no desire to comit a crime.

I can find a woman sexually attractive without ever wanting to have sex with her.

No, you really can't, unless your sexual attraction is not sexual. Just because you are inhibiting yourself from acting on that desire doesn't mean the desire isn't there.

No, you really can't, unless your sexual attraction is not sexual. Just because you are inhibiting yourself from acting on that desire doesn't mean the desire isn't there.

Not at all.

I'm a happily married man, who finds other women sexually attractive, but who has absolutely no intention, nor desire, to actually have sex with them.

I'd hate to think people like me are in THAT much of a minority.

Not at all.

I'm a happily married man, who finds other women sexually attractive, but who has absolutely no intention, nor desire, to actually have sex with them.

I'd hate to think people like me are in THAT much of a minority.

"no true scotsman would not have the desire."

Not at all.

I'm a happily married man, who finds other women sexually attractive, but who has absolutely no intention, nor desire, to actually have sex with them.

If you find them sexually attractive, by definition you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with them. You also have a desire to remain faithful to your wife, but that doesn't just magically erase your sexual attraction even if it overrides you behaviorially.

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime. Not all pedophiles have yet molested children, but that's sort of like saying that not everyone who wants commit murder has done it yet.

What crime? Paedophilia is by definition sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Many paedophiles, aware of the impact acting on their orientation will have on the object, have no desire to actually molest children. Or download child pornography, or commit any other crime related to it.

We do live in a society of laws, and one of the law's functions is to protect the rights of people. Does the pedophile have the right to his own thoughts? Sure, and in fact he is wholly responsible for them. Does he have the right to take pictures of random children in the park and put them on a pedophile website to feed and perpetuate their criminal desire?

Which is why it is perfectly legitimate to require him to take it down. What is not legitimate is slapping him with a virtually impossible to follow restraining order when he has not actually done anything wrong, and has expressed no intention to. By punishing someone for what others in their position have done, or because something that they cannot help feeling is revolting to us, we are only hurting the (somewhat) innocent. We are not protecting anything.

This isn't about thought crime. If someone is depressed and expresses a desire to commit suicide, we as a society tend to want to prevent that from happening. If someone expresses a desire to assassinate the president, is it a violation of rights to pay attention and take steps to prevent it? I don't think so. It's actually in defense of our rights - as parents, perhaps, or just members of society - that we take safeguards against people who for whatever reason want to harm the children.

It is about thought crime. You fail, rather spectacularly to understand that this person has not, to anyone's knowledge, molested a child, and has stated that he has no intention to. Therefore, he has no identifiable desire or intent to harm children. You are seeking to punish him for his bravery (and despicable or not, it is also brave) in admitting to an abberant orientation.

People were not prosecuted for expressing violent desires toward Bush, and they were not prosecuted for expressing the same toward Obama.

If you find them sexually attractive, by definition you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with them. You also have a desire to remain faithful to your wife, but that doesn't just magically erase your sexual attraction even if it overrides you behaviorially.

Sorry, but you're telling ME what desires I have?

I told you already - I can find women sexually attractive without having ANY desire to actually have sex with them. I find them attractive. They can be arousing to me. But I don't have any desire to have any kind of physical contact with them of any intimate nature.

I just don't accept your premise. Sorry.

Sorry, but you're telling ME what desires I have?

I told you already - I can find women sexually attractive without having ANY desire to actually have sex with them. I find them attractive. They can be arousing to me. But I don't have any desire to have any kind of physical contact with them of any intimate nature.

I just don't accept your premise. Sorry.

What, you dont accept his assertion that he knows how you feel better then you do?

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime. Not all pedophiles have yet molested children, but that's sort of like saying that not everyone who wants commit murder has done it yet.

Fuuny I thought it came from the greek words for 'children' and 'love of' not meaning someone who wants to commit a crime.

Everyone can be a murderer should we lock everyone up simply because they want can?

Should we lock everyone up on charges of assualt simply because they have wanted to hit someone before?

Eh, people who actually touch kids should be thrown in jail.

Fixed, females are just as capable of pedophilia as males and have done so in the past.

No, you really can't, unless your sexual attraction is not sexual. Just because you are inhibiting yourself from acting on that desire doesn't mean the desire isn't there.

Well, I must be weird then, because I can get quite aroused by the female form, without desiring sex with females. It's just gross to me (the logistics and mechanics).

If you find them sexually attractive, by definition you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with them. You also have a desire to remain faithful to your wife, but that doesn't just magically erase your sexual attraction even if it overrides you behaviorially.

No, it merely means that you find them sexually attractive. See above. I find naked females very attractive. Don't ever want to have sex with them because the realities are quite repulsive. Do you not think that someone who is attractive to children might have quite a bit of self-loathing and not actually want to have sex with them? Just finds that that is what they are oriented towards?

What, you dont accept his assertion that he knows how you feel better then you do?

Crazy, right?

Nope. Still not true.

A pedophile can be aroused by children, sexually, without ever wanting to actually do anything about it. Thus - no desire to do acts that are illegal, no desire to comit a crime.

I can find a woman sexually attractive without ever wanting to have sex with her.

You rapist, you should be locked up. :eek:

Then no, they're not in any way comparable. And the fact that they use actors is not relevant. You don't learn how to steal cars by playing GTA. You don't learn how to commit covert assassinations by playing Hitman. You don't learn how to beat back the demonic hordes of hell by playing Doom.

You mean it isn't? and here I was thinking that should I ever be sent off to Mars and find myself guarding a hanger on Phobos and everyone else is killed by these hordes that I would know what to do. :(

You rapist, you should be locked up. :eek:

oh noes, the thought police!

You rapist, you should be locked up. :eek:

No he is raping them with his eyes, so we must gouge out his eyes.
Hold him down I will get the gouger.

Sorry, but you're telling ME what desires I have?

No - you told me.

When you said you find other women sexually attractive, did you mean that kind of sexual attraction that involves no desire? Because that's a pretty funky kind of sexual attraction.

I told you already - I can find women sexually attractive without having ANY desire to actually have sex with them.

You say the word "desire," but you seem to think it means "intent." Stop equivocating please.

I find them attractive. They can be arousing to me. But I don't have any desire to have any kind of physical contact with them of any intimate nature.

Again you're conflating desire with intent.


What crime?

Have you not been reading the thread?

Paedophilia is by definition sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Many paedophiles, aware of the impact acting on their orientation will have on the object, have no desire to actually molest children. Or download child pornography, or commit any other crime related to it.

Many pedophiles don't act on their desire, but they HAVE the desire.

Which is why it is perfectly legitimate to require him to take it down. What is not legitimate is slapping him with a virtually impossible to follow restraining order when he has not actually done anything wrong, and has expressed no intention to. By punishing someone for what others in their position have done, or because something that they cannot help feeling is revolting to us, we are only hurting the (somewhat) innocent. We are not protecting anything.

He has done something wrong. I'm sorry you don't seem to see that. Although since you don't, I wonder why you say it was perfectly legitimate to require him to take the website down.

It is about thought crime. You fail, rather spectacularly to understand that this person has not, to anyone's knowledge, molested a child, and has stated that he has no intention to.

I never said he has molested a child or that he stated intent to do so. Fail on you!

Therefore, he has no identifiable desire or intent to harm children.

He has a sexual attraction towards children. That is a desire to harm children.

You are seeking to punish him for his bravery (and despicable or not, it is also brave) in admitting to an abberant orientation.

It is not an "orientation." It is a mental disorder. There can be homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. That is their orientation, the pedophilia is a paraphilia.

People were not prosecuted for expressing violent desires toward Bush, and they were not prosecuted for expressing the same toward Obama.

No? Interesting - I doubt it - but interesting. Perhaps a good subject for another thread!

You rapist, you should be locked up.

Acting on a desire to have sex with women is not rape.
Acting on the desire to have sex with children is.

Acting on a desire to have sex with women is not rape.
Acting on the desire to have sex with children is.

Actually, by your definition, it would be rape. Take for example, a hypothetical. Let's say I pass a woman on the street. I find this woman sexually attractive. She, however, does not find me as such. By your definition, in finding her sexually attractive, I desire sex with her. However she does not desire sex with me.

Therefore I desire to have sex with a woman who does not desire to have sex with me. Therefore I desire to rape her.

He has a sexual attraction towards children. That is a desire to harm children.

No it isn't, unless you are going to say that having a sexual attraction to someone means you want to cause harm by them.

If you have ever had a sexual attraction to anyone then you wish to cause harm to them, and you CC must be locked up for it. (Going by your logic.)

Acting on a desire to have sex with women is not rape.
Acting on the desire to have sex with children is.

So if I act on a my desire to have sex with a woman even if she doesn't want me to then it isn't rape? :confused:

We aren't talking about acting on a desire the entire thread you have talked about having a desire and finding a child attractive means that they must be locked up

Actually, by your definition, it would be rape. Take for example, a hypothetical. Let's say I pass a woman on the street. I find this woman sexually attractive. She, however, does not find me as such. By your definition, in finding her sexually attractive, I desire sex with her. However she does not desire sex with me.

Therefore I desire to have sex with a woman who does not desire to have sex with me. Therefore I desire to rape her.

Eye Rapist!!!
*gets the gouger out*

No he is raping them with his eyes, so we must gouge out his eyes.
Hold him down I will get the gouger.

He may want to use his penis to rape her too, you better cut that off as well.

He may want to use his penis to rape her too, you better cut that off as well.

then cut off his hands and I will have another harem guard.

Actually, by your definition, it would be rape. Take for example, a hypothetical. Let's say I pass a woman on the street. I find this woman sexually attractive. She, however, does not find me as such. By your definition, in finding her sexually attractive, I desire sex with her. However she does not desire sex with me.

Well, if you then act against her wishes, then of course it's rape. But she has the ability to consent, and we're still at the point where most sex is of the consenting variety (I hope).

Therefore I desire to have sex with a woman who does not desire to have sex with me. Therefore I desire to rape her.

It's rape only in the case where the object of your desire and action is nonconsenting. But with children, they are -always- nonconsenting.

No - you told me.

When you said you find other women sexually attractive, did you mean that kind of sexual attraction that involves no desire? Because that's a pretty funky kind of sexual attraction.


I find them sexually attractive.

I can even get aroused (you're making me repeat myself here) without having any actual desire for intercourse. Certainly, without any intent.


You say the word "desire," but you seem to think it means "intent." Stop equivocating please.


I don't mean intent. I'm already ruling out intent, because there is no DESIRE to do it. Stop trying to pick my words for me, please.


Again you're conflating desire with intent.


No - I think you are.

No it isn't, unless you are going to say that having a sexual attraction to someone means you want to cause harm by them.

If they're a child, then yes, it's a desire to cause them harm. There is no friendly, safe, nonharmful child molestation.

If you have ever had a sexual attraction to anyone then you wish to cause harm to them, and you CC must be locked up for it. (Going by your logic.)

That's not my logic.

So if I act on a my desire to have sex with a woman even if she doesn't want me to then it isn't rape? :confused:

No. Having sex with women doesn't necessitate raping them. Having sex with a child does constitute a sex crime.

We aren't talking about acting on a desire the entire thread you have talked about having a desire and finding a child attractive means that they must be locked up

You're not being very clear here, but I know what I didn't say, and that fits the bill.

I find them sexually attractive.

I can even get aroused (you're making me repeat myself here) without having any actual desire for intercourse. Certainly, without any intent.

"Actual desire," as opposed to that fake desire you're talking about? That special kind of sexual attraction that involves neither attraction nor sexuality?

The one that magically lets you desire other women without desiring them?

I don't mean intent. I'm already ruling out intent, because there is no DESIRE to do it. Stop trying to pick my words for me, please.


Do you know what the word 'desire' means?
Because you aren't arguing as if you do.


No - I think you are.

Oh, the rubber-glue argument. Charming.

No. Having sex with women doesn't necessitate raping them. Having sex with a child does constitute a sex crime.


But finding a woman sexually attractive doesn't necessitate raping her OR having sex with her.

If they're a child, then yes, it's a desire to cause them harm. There is no friendly, safe, nonharmful child molestation.

Finding a child cute doesn't mean that you wish to have sex with them.

That's not my logic.

But it is, you stated that finding someone attractive is a desire to harm them, therefore finding an adult attractive must also mean you want to harm them if they don't find you sexually attractive and you would like to have sex with them then you wish to rape them.

No. Having sex with women doesn't necessitate raping them. Having sex with a child does constitute a sex crime.

The key wird here is having, not thinking not finding them attractive but actually committing the act. I will not debate this statement but it is different to what you have been saying in other posts.

You're not being very clear here, but I know what I didn't say, and that fits the bill.

This thread has been about you arguing that he should be punished because he finds children sexually attractive regardless of whether he has acted on this or not.

"Actual desire," as opposed to that fake desire you're talking about? That special kind of sexual attraction that involves neither attraction nor sexuality?

The one that magically lets you desire other women without desiring them?


Don't quibble my phrasing.

I've repeatedly tried to make explicit what I'm saying, and you appear to be more intent on scoring points over wording than actually engaging what I'm saying.


Do you know what the word 'desire' means?
Because you aren't arguing as if you do.


Yes, I know what the word desire means, and I think you're conflating two different meanings of the same word. I do not 'desire' sex with another woman, but that doesn't mean I am discussing the subject of 'desire'.


Oh, the rubber-glue argument. Charming.

Don't be childish. You told me I'm conflating intent with desire, but it seems that you are trying to make my words mean something other than they are intended to... or (as far as I can tell) portray.

Thus, I have to assume you are confusing those two words.

But finding a woman sexually attractive doesn't necessitate raping her OR having sex with her.

No, finding a woman sexually attractive means you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with her. It doesn't mean you have the intent to do so. My god, how complicated was that?

Finding a child cute doesn't mean that you wish to have sex with them.

Uhh, it does if by "cute" you mean "sexually attractive."

But it is, you stated that finding someone attractive is a desire to harm them

Yes, if they are a child because fucking children is harmful to them.

, therefore finding an adult attractive must also mean you want to harm them if they don't find you sexually attractive and you would like to have sex with them then you wish to rape them.

Sigh.

Yes, there is an impulse to have sex with people you find sexually attractive. Yes, acting on that without the consent of said people is rape. Yes, it is always a sex crime to act on sexual attraction towards children since children cannot consent. Yes, this is different because unlike with adult women, it is impossible to have sex with a child in a way that is nonharmful or legal.

Don't quibble my phrasing.

I've repeatedly tried to make explicit what I'm saying, and you appear to be more intent on scoring points over wording than actually engaging what I'm saying.

You've repeatedly failed to argue your point. Saying I am 'intent on scoring points' is an interesting tangent but not helping you here.

Yes, I know what the word desire means, and I think you're conflating two different meanings of the same word. I do not 'desire' sex with another woman, but that doesn't mean I am discussing the subject of 'desire'.

If you are sexually attracted to them, that is a desire for sexual activities with them. Do you know what "attracted" means?

And if you're not discussing the subject of desire, then what the fuck is your point?

Have you not been reading the thread?

Well, I found your post didn't I? Back on page 2. One would think that since my reply was on page 4, it would indicate that I have, in fact, read the thread.



Many pedophiles don't act on their desire, but they HAVE the desire.

No, they have an attraction to a certain type of person. Not the desire to act on that attraction.



He has done something wrong. I'm sorry you don't seem to see that. Although since you don't, I wonder why you say it was perfectly legitimate to require him to take the website down.

They have slapped him with a restraining order, based on the supposition that he is a danger to chidren, simply because he has a physical attraction to them. The website was inappropriate and an invasion of privacy. Therefore, they have the right to ask him to take it down.



I never said he has molested a child or that he stated intent to do so. Fail on you!

You contradict yourself in this very post:

He has a sexual attraction towards children. That is a desire to harm children.

And previous examples:

That's a rather false analogy. Very few gamers have a desire (in the sense that a pedophile does) to behave violently - every single pedophile has a sexual desire for children by definition.

Pedophilia is by definition, a desire to commit a crime.

Many, many paedophiles have NO desire to have sex with children. They have a sexual attraction to them.

It is not an "orientation." It is a mental disorder. There can be homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. That is their orientation, the pedophilia is a paraphilia.



sexual orientation 
–noun one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.




pedophilia

noun
a sexual attraction to children


Seems that paedophilia, whatever else it may be, is indeed a sexual orientation.

Uhh, it does if by "cute" you mean "sexually attractive."

Explain how

Yes, if they are a child because fucking children is harmful to them.

But we haven't been talking about fucking children, we have been talking about finding a child sexually attractive or not.

Sigh.

Yes, there is an impulse to have sex with people you find sexually attractive. Yes, acting on that without the consent of said people is rape. Yes, it is always a sex crime to act on sexual attraction towards children since children cannot consent. Yes, this is different because unlike with adult women, it is impossible to have sex with a child in a way that is nonharmful or legal.

And this is why your previous statements are failing even in here you talk about acting on these deisres, no one is debating that with you what we are debating you with is you saying that finding someone sexually attractive is molestation.

You've repeatedly failed to argue your point. Saying I am 'intent on scoring points' is an interesting tangent but not helping you here.


I've repeatedly made my point. You've repeatedly (apparently) failed to comprehend it - although I'm beginning to believe it's less about comprehension, and more about a desire to obviate.


If you are sexually attracted to them, that is a desire for sexual activities with them.


No, it isn't. It means they hold an attraction for you, which is sexual. It is NOT the same as having any kind of desire for sexual activities... with them or anyone else.


Do you know what "attracted" means?

And if you're not discussing the subject of desire, then what the fuck is your point?

That is the point. You can be sexually attracted to someone, without wanting to have sex with them.

Example - a girl I know is fantastically hot. Even if my wife said she wanted me to cheat, and if the girl in question wanted me to cheat with her - I still do not want to have intercourse with her. But she has just the kind of body, personality and mind I like.

I find her sexually attractive, but I do not want to have sex with her.

Actually, by your definition, it would be rape. Take for example, a hypothetical. Let's say I pass a woman on the street. I find this woman sexually attractive. She, however, does not find me as such. By your definition, in finding her sexually attractive, I desire sex with her. However she does not desire sex with me.

Therefore I desire to have sex with a woman who does not desire to have sex with me. Therefore I desire to rape her.

That's a very dodgy piece of logic you've got going on there.

That's a very dodgy piece of logic you've got going on there.

That was the point of Neo's post to show CC how dodgy his logic is.

No, finding a woman sexually attractive means you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with her. It doesn't mean you have the intent to do so. My god, how complicated was that?

I already refuted that. I find women sexually attractive. The sex act between 2 women abhors me. Therefore, I actually have no desire to commit sex acts with people I find attractive. Is it so hard to believe that a paedophile would feel the same?

Yes, if they are a child because fucking children is harmful to them.

Finding someone attractive does not equate, as several posters have already pointed out, to fucking them, or even wanting to have sex with them.


Yes, there is an impulse to have sex with people you find sexually attractive. Yes, acting on that without the consent of said people is rape. Yes, it is always a sex crime to act on sexual attraction towards children since children cannot consent. Yes, this is different because unlike with adult women, it is impossible to have sex with a child in a way that is nonharmful or legal.

I'll repeat my example, for your benefit

I find women sexually attractive. The sex act between 2 women abhors me. Therefore, I actually have no desire to commit sex acts with people I find attractive. Is it so hard to believe that a paedophile would feel the same



If you are sexually attracted to them, that is a desire for sexual activities with them. Do you know what "attracted" means?

See above

That was the point of Neo's post to show CC how dodgy his logic is.

...I know.

Acting on a desire to have sex with women is not rape.
Acting on the desire to have sex with children is.

Ahhhhhh? you might want to clarify that.

Acting on a desire to have sex with a woman who does not want sex with you is rape. It's that consensual thing.

Which is why sex with children is not permissible.....

Ahhhhhh? you might want to clarify that.

Acting on a desire to have sex with a woman who does not want sex with you is rape. It's that consensual thing.

Which is why sex with children is not permissible.....

Actually, I've just thought about the phrasing of the post in question. A man acting on a desire to have sex with women (i.e. in general) isn't (likely to be) rape; a man acting on a desire to have sex with a woman (i.e. one in particular) may well be rape, depending on the woman in question.

A man acting on a desire to have sex with either children (i.e. in general), or a child (i.e. on in particular), is always going to be rape, regardless of the child in question.

So, really, when you actually think about what was written, and stop being so NSG about it, there's no problem with that post.

No shit, but we are talking about issuing a restraining order on someone for his fucking thoughts.

Literally.

Fuuny I thought it came from the greek words for 'children' and 'love of' not meaning someone who wants to commit a crime.

Everyone can be a murderer should we lock everyone up simply because they want can?

Should we lock everyone up on charges of assualt simply because they have wanted to hit someone before?

Or worse yet, put anyone on a watch list who has ever said "I'm gonna kill _____" -- regardless of the context?

When you said you find other women sexually attractive, did you mean that kind of sexual attraction that involves no desire? Because that's a pretty funky kind of sexual attraction.

So? What does it matter how "funky" you think it is? You're a judgmental little cusser, ain't you?

You say the word "desire," but you seem to think it means "intent." Stop equivocating please.

Uh...no. I've read this whole exchange, and you're the one trying to tell others what they mean while stating some amazingly incorrect things. YOU are equating desire and intent. Hell, you're equating attraction and intercourse, too, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Many pedophiles don't act on their desire, but they HAVE the desire.

True. Also true is that this means that they're not criminals.

He has done something wrong. I'm sorry you don't seem to see that.

If by that you mean the unauthorized posting online of pictures taken without consent, then yes, that's illegal. It's not a felony, but it's illegal.

I never said he has molested a child or that he stated intent to do so. Fail on you!

Oh, but you have stated exactly that. To wit:

He has a sexual attraction towards children. That is a desire to harm children.

...this little steaming pile of dung.

Acting on a desire to have sex with women is not rape.

Surely this depends on context. Acting on it in public isn't rape, necessarily, but it is illegal. The other part of context is the capability of consent of the woman, and the presence or absence of said consent. Are you familiar with the term "nuance"?

Acting on the desire to have sex with children is.

Which is absolutely, positively NOT the same as having an attraction.

No, finding a woman sexually attractive means you have a desire to engage in sexual activities with her.

In what world? That might be common combination, but the former does not automatically imply the latter.

It doesn't mean you have the intent to do so. My god, how complicated was that?

I'm not sure. You seem to be the one having difficulty telling those two things apart.

Yes, if they are a child because fucking children is harmful to them.

At what age, and who's doing the fucking? Legally, anyone under 18 years of age is a minor -- a "child". Is there harm when 19 fucks 17? 15 fucks 14?

Again, context.

Sigh.

You can't complain about others' glibness and then actually take the time to type this.

Yes, there is an impulse to have sex with people you find sexually attractive.

Impulse? Let's see...according to Merriam-Webster, and "impulse" is...

"A sudden, strong, and unreflective urge or desire to act."

Nope. I can find someone sexually attractive and not have an unreflective urge to fuck them. Sorry.

Yes, acting on that without the consent of said people is rape.

Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Did anyone here have a problem with that particular nugget of obviousness? Sorry for the tone, but I'm getting tired of your pedantic tone, so I thought I'd chime in with some needless snark to balance things a bit.

Yes, it is always a sex crime to act on sexual attraction towards children since children cannot consent. Yes, this is different because unlike with adult women, it is impossible to have sex with a child in a way that is nonharmful or legal.

Thank you again, Captain Obvious. Of course, if you're a child yourself, and it's, like, Prom, or something, well, that changes the whole contextual mess, doesn't it? That's the problem with "always".

If you are sexually attracted to them, that is a desire for sexual activities with them. Do you know what "attracted" means?

Do you? Let's see, in this context, I believe the proper definition of "attract" is...

"To cause (someone) to have a sexual or romantic interest in someone." I don't see "activities" in that definition, do you? The thought and the deed, as you've pointed out, do not automatically go hand in hand. With pedophiles, this is especially true if one values one's freedom.

And if you're not discussing the subject of desire, then what the fuck is your point?

Since you're not really certain what you're talking about, same question.

Ahhhhhh? you might want to clarify that.

Acting on a desire to have sex with a woman who does not want sex with you is rape. It's that consensual thing.

Which is why sex with children is not permissible.....

In the context of pedophilia, this is true, but it's not an "always" thing if both partners are "children", i.e. minors capable of sexual activity.

EDIT: Is it still pedophilia if the one with the attraction is him- or herself a child?

Sorry to bust your bubble. But this is old news from 2006/2007.

And, as much as we don't like what this guy is doing, there are actually a couple of things.

First:
His taking pictures of children in public places is completely protected by the US Constitution which takes precedent over all state laws.

Second:
His posting of his personal opinions toward children is also protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Third:
His encouraging people to committ violent crimes and his instructions on how to committ crimes against children are not protected. And that is what they can prosecute him on.
Photography and posting on websites is not prosecutable because those are both specially protected activities. But aiding and betting career child rapers is not.

See if they narrowly tailored it to aiding and abetting they would have gotten a prosecution and a guilty conviction already. Instead they want to repeal the US Constitution.

The right not to have your picture published without your permission.
In the US any photos you take of anything in a public place can be published. You don't need permission. The only public places that can't photographed are military and national security installations. Parks, amusement parks, libraries, and schools don't fit those criteria.


Now if this was another country, he'd probably be in jail already.

Actually, I've just thought about the phrasing of the post in question. A man acting on a desire to have sex with women (i.e. in general) isn't (likely to be) rape; a man acting on a desire to have sex with a woman (i.e. one in particular) may well be rape, depending on the woman in question.

A man acting on a desire to have sex with either children (i.e. in general), or a child (i.e. on in particular), is always going to be rape, regardless of the child in question.

So, really, when you actually think about what was written, and stop being so NSG about it, there's no problem with that post.

So what you are saying is that it is only rape if one limits them selves to one woman. But one who has sex with women rather than a woman is not rape.

Assuming none of the women in question gave consent.

Third:
His encouraging people to committ violent crimes and his instructions on how to committ crimes against children are not protected. And that is what they can prosecute him on.
Photography and posting on websites is not prosecutable because those are both specially protected activities. But aiding and betting career child rapers is not.

Unless you have directly citable evidence that McClellan active encouraged and incontrovertibly advised the committing of child molestation and the covering up of such through his website, you're talking out of your ass par for the course.

See if they narrowly tailored it to aiding and abetting they would have gotten a prosecution and a guilty conviction already. Instead they want to repeal the US Constitution.

Again, that would require actual evidence that he gave advice on how to pick up kids, how to molest them and how to cover it all up. There's plenty of anti-abortion websites that list names and addresses of physicians in an implied hit list but they haven't been shut down far as I know. So why would it be okay to prosecute McClellan just because he's admitted his tastes but hasn't actively indulged them while we've got Operation Rescue-type sites that celebrate the murder of a physician without being clamped down?

I never defended his website. Im saying he shouldnt be on a watchlist.

Unless we're going to put every member of stormfront on a watchlist too.


As an aside, does his website actually say anything like "Raping young girls if fun [I]and here's how to do it so you don't get caught"?

At the time of the story he did an interview on the John and Ken show, a popular radio show in Los Angeles, and he told them his intention on posting the photos and locations was to help other pedophiles who do act on their impulses. A clear case that he was consciously aiding and abetting.

I want to ask a question about "watch lists". Let's accept two things as a premise:

1) police have generally limited resources

2) criminals of certain types have a tendency to demonstrate certain characteristics, at least at a higher or more obvious rate than non criminals

With that in mind, what's wrong with a watch list? I'm not talking about violating anyone's constitutional rights. I'm not talking about making him stop what he's saying. I'm talking about devoting additional resources to legally monitor someone who, based on his behavior, appears to be more likely to commit violent crimes?

What, at its core, is wrong with that?
Here's the problem. Statistics show that hispanics are more likely to committ crimes than any other group. Therefore, according to your logic, we should put all hispanics on a watchlist just because they are hispanic, a characteristic of a person likely to committ a crime.

Do you see the problem now?

Unless you have directly citable evidence that McClellan active encouraged and incontrovertibly advised the committing of child molestation and the covering up of such through his website, you're talking out of your ass par for the course.



Again, that would require actual evidence that he gave advice on how to pick up kids, how to molest them and how to cover it all up. There's plenty of anti-abortion websites that list names and addresses of physicians in an implied hit list but they haven't been shut down far as I know. So why would it be okay to prosecute McClellan just because he's admitted his tastes but hasn't actively indulged them while we've got Operation Rescue-type sites that celebrate the murder of a physician without being clamped down?

I listened to his interview with John and Ken. All you have to do is call their producer and ask if they ever interviewed the guy. They should have a recording or transcript that you can acquire. It would show him confessing that his reason for posting the information was to tell peds where they can go and get access to many little girls.

Of course, any one who knows anything, would know that obviously there will be children at parks, libraries, and places like Disneyland.

One of the problems is the definition of children, which some of people who were involved was any and all people under 18. Children would be more accurately defined as persons 15 and under.


I've heard the brain development arguments which have a major problem. You don't have an adult brain until 34, 35. So if you use the mental development as your guide, then people under 35 are still children.

I'm not so sure people between 16 and 35 appreciate being referred to or treated like children which pretty much relegates them to second class status.

heres an interview with a Washington radio station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkV09mdUTlg

I posted this thread earlier and wasn't able to get back to it....please bear with me while I play catch up.

See, there's a big difference here. "Raping young girls is fun!" is what we call free speech. Raping young girls if fun and here's how to do it so you don't get caught" is something we call "aiding and abetting". And yeah, it's a crime.
I see your point to a degree, but you can only "aid and abet" a crime, ONLY if someone actually commits a crime?

No shit, but we are talking about issuing a restraining order on someone for his fucking thoughts.
That is what the police did......is that a violation of the guy's Rights? And how do you stay 30 feet away from every child whilst walking down the street.

I know......middle of the road where he can be run over? :tongue:

heres an interview with a Washington radio station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkV09mdUTlg
Another interview where he gets arrested for being on UCLA property:

pedophile jack mclellan arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Tjb6XyG-Q&NR=1)

Here's the problem. Statistics show that hispanics are more likely to committ crimes than any other group. Therefore, according to your logic, we should put all hispanics on a watchlist just because they are hispanic, a characteristic of a person likely to committ a crime.

Do you see the problem now?

considering I already addressed this issue....no, not in particular. You really should read ahead.

Sorry to bust your bubble. But this is old news from 2006/2007.

And, as much as we don't like what this guy is doing, there are actually a couple of things.

First:
His taking pictures of children in public places is completely protected by the US Constitution which takes precedent over all state laws.

Second:
His posting of his personal opinions toward children is also protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Third:
His encouraging people to committ violent crimes and his instructions on how to committ crimes against children are not protected. And that is what they can prosecute him on.
Photography and posting on websites is not prosecutable because those are both specially protected activities. But aiding and betting career child rapers is not.

See if they narrowly tailored it to aiding and abetting they would have gotten a prosecution and a guilty conviction already. Instead they want to repeal the US Constitution.
Update from Dec. 13, 2008:

Steve VS Pedophile Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4lthl2pvi8&feature=related)

And, again, where is the "aiding and abetting"? And where does he specifically "encourage people to committ violent crimes"?

*reads pages and pages of thread*

Geez is it really that difficult to understand the difference between the presence of something causing arousal and the desire to have sex with that something?

Let me introduce you to Mr Hypothetical. Mr Hypothetical has an odd fetish that causes him to become aroused when near a beehive, which is why he enjoys being around such places. Perhaps it's the buzzing. Does mr Hypothetical have a desire to stick his dick into a beehive? No.

Now the big question is, is someone who does get aroused by the presence of children but who has no desire to touch them in bad ways a pedophile?

*reads pages and pages of thread*

Geez is it really that difficult to understand the difference between the presence of something causing arousal and the desire to have sex with that something?

Let me introduce you to Mr Hypothetical. Mr Hypothetical has an odd fetish that causes him to become aroused when near a beehive, which is why he enjoys being around such places. Perhaps it's the buzzing. Does mr Hypothetical have a desire to stick his dick into a beehive? No.

Now the big question is, is someone who does get aroused by the presence of children but who has no desire to touch them in bad ways a pedophile?

Well yes, yes he is.

Well yes, yes he is.

At long last, someone is thinking of the children.

At long last, someone is thinking of the children.

Heh!

Sarcasm aside though, what makes a gay man gay? Is it the sexual act or is it his sexual preferance?

Or put another way, you're a 16 year old virgin, who feels sexual attraction towards members of your own gender, are you heterosexual?

There's nothing illegal about being a pedophile.
Being a pedophile isn't illegal; having sex with kids is.

There might be something illegal if with that site he encourages someone to have sex with kids. Close call, though, it depends on the local laws about pedophily and right of press.

Heh!

Sarcasm aside though, what makes a gay man gay? Is it the sexual act or is it his sexual preferance?

Or put another way, you're a 16 year old virgin, who feels sexual attraction towards members of your own gender, are you heterosexual?

The preference, obviously. Otherwise everyone would be asexual until the had sex.

The preference, obviously. Otherwise everyone would be asexual until the had sex.

So a man that has a sexual prferance for kids even though he has not acted on them can certianly be called a Peadophile.

Being a pedophile isn't illegal; having sex with kids is.

There might be something illegal if with that site he encourages someone to have sex with kids. Close call, though, it depends on the local laws about pedophily and right of press.

It's a sticky one. On the one hand he is free to have whatever content on his website as he wants(barring pictures or descriptions of child abuse?). On the other hand if he is telling others the best places to go to 'watch' kids, then he cannot know that others like him, but with less willpower, will not visit these places with actual abuse in mind.

Ummm maybe he gets his kicks from a sorta voyayism?

*reads pages and pages of thread*

Geez is it really that difficult to understand the difference between the presence of something causing arousal and the desire to have sex with that something?

Let me introduce you to Mr Hypothetical. Mr Hypothetical has an odd fetish that causes him to become aroused when near a beehive, which is why he enjoys being around such places. Perhaps it's the buzzing. Does mr Hypothetical have a desire to stick his dick into a beehive? No.

Now the big question is, is someone who does get aroused by the presence of children but who has no desire to touch them in bad ways a pedophile?
Strictly by definition, yes he is a "pedophile".

pedophile:

adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child
Therefore, he is a pedophile who has commited no crime.

Strictly by definition, yes he is a "pedophile".
Therefore, he is a pedophile who has commited no crime.

Correct. Hence, it is possible to be a pedophile legally.

So what you are saying is that it is only rape if one limits them selves to one woman. But one who has sex with women rather than a woman is not rape.

Assuming none of the women in question gave consent.

Yes, that's definitely what I'm saying. That's absolutely what I wrote. Well done.

Correct. Hence, it is possible to be a pedophile legally.
Exactly. Although he has desires that many would find sick and disgusting, he is entitled to have those desires.

In the videos that I watched regarding this guy, he states that he is 99% sure that he wouldn't commit the crime associated to his desires.

Heh!

Sarcasm aside though, what makes a gay man gay? Is it the sexual act or is it his sexual preferance?

Or put another way, you're a 16 year old virgin, who feels sexual attraction towards members of your own gender, are you heterosexual?

Of course it is the preference and who you feel sexually attracted to.

Well yes, yes he is.

Of course he is if one is in love with children then that is paedophilia.

But one is not bad if they aren't acting on those sessions.

It is unfortunate that the media has decided to pick one of these issues as something they must crusade against.

Yes, that's definitely what I'm saying. That's absolutely what I wrote. Well done.

Well it is, isn't it?

*reads pages and pages of thread*

Geez is it really that difficult to understand the difference between the presence of something causing arousal and the desire to have sex with that something?

Let me introduce you to Mr Hypothetical. Mr Hypothetical has an odd fetish that causes him to become aroused when near a beehive, which is why he enjoys being around such places. Perhaps it's the buzzing. Does mr Hypothetical have a desire to stick his dick into a beehive? No.

Now the big question is, is someone who does get aroused by the presence of children but who has no desire to touch them in bad ways a pedophile?

Yes he is. He's not a criminal, though.

Let me introduce you to Mr Hypothetical. Mr Hypothetical has an odd fetish that causes him to become aroused when near a beehive, which is why he enjoys being around such places. Perhaps it's the buzzing. Does mr Hypothetical have a desire to stick his dick into a beehive? No.
Well, he might... It just isn't automatically the case

Now the big question is, is someone who does get aroused by the presence of children but who has no desire to touch them in bad ways a pedophile?
Yes, the person is not a child molester though.

Yes, the person is not a child molester though.

And thus is the crux of the debate. Pedophilia is so much associated with child molestation that any pedophile is automatically treated as if having molested a child whether or not he or she has actually done so.

are the cars actual cars that are actually getting stolen? Can you car jack a tank by running up to it and hitting the "A" button? Can you commit assassinations by pulling the trigger button on your game controller?

No?

Then no, they're not in any way comparable. And the fact that they use actors is not relevant. You don't learn how to steal cars by playing GTA. You don't learn how to commit covert assassinations by playing Hitman. You don't learn how to beat back the demonic hordes of hell by playing Doom.

You can actually learn how to rape children and get away with it from a website that provides tips on how to rape children and get away with it.

And the fact of the matter is, there's such a huge and obvious difference between those two things, that your apparent failure to grasp it proves that you either have serious, serious problems with your perceptions of reality, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

The site does not give advice on how to rape children, nor how to evade the law. The fellow has also made it clear that he knows that even "touching" children is wrong, and does not support it.

And thus is the crux of the debate. Pedophilia is so much associated with child molestation that any pedophile is automatically treated as if having molested a child whether or not he or she has actually done so.

As a parent, I agree with the idea of this guy being given a restraining order...

As a citizen, I abhor the idea.

I see your point to a degree, but you can only "aid and abet" a crime, ONLY if someone actually commits a crime?
There is something called "conspiring" to aid and abet.

I never defended his website. Im saying he shouldnt be on a watchlist.

Unless we're going to put every member of stormfront on a watchlist too.
Along with every rape fantasist, etc.

There is something called "conspiring" to aid and abet.
No, I don't believe that conspiracy would be applicable in this case either.

So? What does it matter how "funky" you think it is? You're a judgmental little cusser, ain't you?


Sorry, looks like you missed the point - you can't have a sexual attraction that isn't a desire. See it yet? No?

Uh...no. I've read this whole exchange, and you're the one trying to tell others what they mean while stating some amazingly incorrect things. YOU are equating desire and intent.

No, I have never once done that, and you won't be able to show that I have. I welcome you to try. Maybe read things through again.

Hell, you're equating attraction and intercourse, too, so I shouldn't be surprised.


I equate sexual attraction with a desire for sexual activities. ZOMG how alien a concept!

True. Also true is that this means that they're not criminals.

Did I say pedophiles were criminals? No. And again you won't be able to show anywhere that I have.

If by that you mean the unauthorized posting online of pictures taken without consent, then yes, that's illegal. It's not a felony, but it's illegal.

Indeed.

Oh, but you have stated exactly that. To wit:



...this little steaming pile of dung.


A desire to have sexual activities with a child is a desire to hurt that child because such sexual activities would be harmful. Sorry, claiming it a "steaming pile of dung" is not going to convince me that there is such a thing as non-harmful sexual activities between an adult and a child.

Surely this depends on context. Acting on it in public isn't rape, necessarily, but it is illegal. The other part of context is the capability of consent of the woman, and the presence or absence of said consent. Are you familiar with the term "nuance"?

Are you familiar with the concept of relevance? Pointing out "aha, but its possible to have nonconsentual sex with adult women TOO!" is not in any way disagreeing with my argument here. It is possible to have consentual sex with an adult woman. It is impossible to have consentual sex with a child. Do you understand yet?

Which is absolutely, positively NOT the same as having an attraction.

Oh, well since you put "absolutely, positively" in there there's just no rebuttal to make, is there!

In what world? That might be common combination, but the former does not automatically imply the latter.

Right, this magical kind of sexual attraction having nothing to do with sexual activities whatsoever. Are you aware that this makes no fucking sense whatsoever?

I'm not sure. You seem to be the one having difficulty telling those two things apart.

Ooh, witty comeback! Unfortunately, I'm not having any difficulty here, except perhaps in explaining myself to people who would rather insult me and make snappy one-liners than discuss the subject.

At what age, and who's doing the fucking? Legally, anyone under 18 years of age is a minor -- a "child". Is there harm when 19 fucks 17? 15 fucks 14?

"Minor" =/= "child." I am talking about children. You know, as in pedophilia? The subject at hand?

Again, context.

^^

You can't complain about others' glibness and then actually take the time to type this.

Why actually, I can!

Impulse? Let's see...according to Merriam-Webster, and "impulse" is...

"A sudden, strong, and unreflective urge or desire to act."

Nope. I can find someone sexually attractive and not have an unreflective urge to fuck them. Sorry.

You can pretend that a sexual desire is not sexual nor a desire. You can keep saying that this is so. Not a very compelling argument however. Sorry.

Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Did anyone here have a problem with that particular nugget of obviousness?

Apparently he did.

Sorry for the tone, but I'm getting tired of your pedantic tone, so I thought I'd chime in with some needless snark to balance things a bit.

Right, because you bitching at me will make me change my tone. Quick, I better change my tone, or else random internet guy will butt into the argument and snap at me!

Thank you again, Captain Obvious. Of course, if you're a child yourself, and it's, like, Prom, or something, well, that changes the whole contextual mess, doesn't it? That's the problem with "always".


Children don't go to Prom. You know, I should be stating the obvious here too, but apparently it's not so obvious. We're talking again about pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction towards children. Not a sexual attraction towards minors. Not all minors are children. But all children are minors and cannot consent. Are we clear yet?

Do you? Let's see, in this context, I believe the proper definition of "attract" is...

"To cause (someone) to have a sexual or romantic interest in someone." I don't see "activities" in that definition, do you?

And what do you think makes that interest sexual?

A desire for understanding higher math?

The thought and the deed, as you've pointed out, do not automatically go hand in hand. With pedophiles, this is especially true if one values one's freedom.

Wanting to do something isn't the same as doing it, no. I've never said otherwise. Like how someone might want to kill the President and say as much, but doesn't actually try. Yet I think there might be reason to watch them even if they don't, don't you?

Since you're not really certain what you're talking about, same question.

I'm talking about sexual desire. You know, the sexual desire that defines one as a pedophile, for example. For the record, the DSM-IV TR describes that sexual attraction as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)."

Now unless you're going to argue successfully that "sexually arousing fantasies," "sexual urges" or "behaviors involving sexual activity with" are non-sexual or involve no impulse or desire for any sexual activities, my point stands.

No, I don't believe that conspiracy would be applicable in this case either.

Conspiring to aid and abet sounds like the epitome of dubious jargon.

Caloderia City's posting style reeks of Trotsia.

At any rate, I've not seen a compelling argument for why sexual attraction automatically equals desire for sex. I've personally experienced many moments where I was sexually attracted to someone but had no desire to presently sleep with them. I think sexual attraction can equal sexual desire, but I don't see why it automatically has to.

Caloderia City's posting style reeks of Trotsia.

At any rate, I've not seen a compelling argument for why sexual attraction automatically equals desire for sex. I've personally experienced many moments where I was sexually attracted to someone but had no desire to presently sleep with them. I think sexual attraction can equal sexual desire, but I don't see why it automatically has to.

CC was also trying to say that sexual attraction automatically means that you have sex with them, something he too is yet to convince me of and given no good argument supporting it.

Maybe that is what he does when he is sexually attracted to someone.

Sorry, looks like you missed the point - you can't have a sexual attraction that isn't a desire. See it yet? No?

We can't see your point because, as many posters (including myself, who you have yet to respond to) have pointed out, they can refute through their own experience this idiotic statement.


I equate sexual attraction with a desire for sexual activities. ZOMG how alien a concept!

And many, many more people on this thread disagree with you. Just because I say that the sky is now pink with purple polka dots is not going to make people start agreeing with me.

Did I say pedophiles were criminals? No. And again you won't be able to show anywhere that I have.

But it is, you stated that finding someone attractive is a desire to harm them

Yes, if they are a child because fucking children is harmful to them.


A desire to have sexual activities with a child is a desire to hurt that child because such sexual activities would be harmful. Sorry, claiming it a "steaming pile of dung" is not going to convince me that there is such a thing as non-harmful sexual activities between an adult and a child.

But you have yet to demonstrate that attraction necessitates desire any further than saying, "It is because I say so." Furthermore, even if they did "desire" it it's still not harmful because there is no guarantee that they will molest.



Are you familiar with the concept of relevance? Pointing out "aha, but its possible to have nonconsentual sex with adult women TOO!" is not in any way disagreeing with my argument here. It is possible to have consentual sex with an adult woman. It is impossible to have consentual sex with a child. Do you understand yet?

But what if you are both children?


Right, this magical kind of sexual attraction having nothing to do with sexual activities whatsoever. Are you aware that this makes no fucking sense whatsoever?

Yes, the kind that many of us have demonstrated quite capably throughout the thread. Perhaps you should take your head out of the sandbox?

"Minor" =/= "child." I am talking about children. You know, as in pedophilia? The subject at hand?

The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.

You can pretend that a sexual desire is not sexual nor a desire. You can keep saying that this is so. Not a very compelling argument however. Sorry.

Several posters on this thread have already provided numerous examples. You are refusing to acknowledge this.

Children don't go to Prom. You know, I should be stating the obvious here too, but apparently it's not so obvious. We're talking again about pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction towards children. Not a sexual attraction towards minors. Not all minors are children. But all children are minors and cannot consent. Are we clear yet?

See above.


Wanting to do something isn't the same as doing it, no. I've never said otherwise. Like how someone might want to kill the President and say as much, but doesn't actually try. Yet I think there might be reason to watch them even if they don't, don't you?

But you have. If they're a child, then yes, it's a desire to cause them harm. There is no friendly, safe, nonharmful child molestation.


I'm talking about sexual desire. You know, the sexual desire that defines one as a pedophile, for example. For the record, the DSM-IV TR describes that sexual attraction as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)."

Now unless you're going to argue successfully that "sexually arousing fantasies," "sexual urges" or "behaviors involving sexual activity with" are non-sexual or involve no impulse or desire for any sexual activities, my point stands.

I already demonstrated that one can become aroused by fantasies without ever actually wanting to carry them out. I don't have any desire to have sex with females, yet find females sexually arousing in certain circumstances. Other posters have advised that they find other women sexually attractive but have no desire to engage in actions which constitute infidelity.

Whether or not you need someone's permission to put their photo online depends on a couple of things:

1. What nation you are in. European nations have laws that require some sort of written consent to put pictures of anyone up. The United States has no such law. In the US you can post anything that does not constitute child pornography. No permissions needed.
2. While the feds have no such law, some states have dubious "right of publicity laws". These laws have never been challenged. But some cases have ruled that photographers have the right to take pictures and post them as long as they are not making money off of it. Hence, I see you walking down the street or leaving the Hokey Pokey's Strip Club, because you are in public I can take your picture and post it online for your wife and other people to find. Often it is only convicted criminals and gangmembers who object to being photographed. It should be noted that pedos don't like being photographed either. Too bad for them. I say if they don't like they should leave the US.
3. Site terms of service. Some sites bar photos of people taken without their consent but these only apply to sites that are not owned by the photographer.

@ OP: Yes they do, he's a human being as well.

A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples.
By Rind, Bruce; Tromovitch, Philip; Bauserman, Robert
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 124(1), Jul 1998, 22-53.

Abstract
Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and than men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples.
By Rind, Bruce; Tromovitch, Philip; Bauserman, Robert
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 124(1), Jul 1998, 22-53.

Abstract
Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and than men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

So... what are you getting at here? We should all go stick it up our daughter's poopers and it won't hurt them? I'm confused as to why you posted this.

So... what are you getting at here? We should all go stick it up our daughter's poopers and it won't hurt them? I'm confused as to why you posted this.
Me too, as it is irrelevant to the thread topic.

Now unless you're going to argue successfully that "sexually arousing fantasies," "sexual urges" or "behaviors involving sexual activity with" are non-sexual or involve no impulse or desire for any sexual activities, my point stands.

All I need to do is refer you back to the definition of impulse -- everyone else has taken care of the rest -- and your point sits.