PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[Kuciwalker]

Sky: The link works for me, perhaps try again or I can send it to you via PM?

I just couldn't find it before on your website.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boshko
On their website they say that they don't post anything until they've called the person and definately established a meeting for sex.

But they haven't actually gone. You don't know if they intend to go through with it, or, as many say, if they just wanted to see, but not go through with it.

Originally posted by Boshko
Anyone who goes that far more or less deserves whatever this website does to them.

In your opinion. The law is a little different though, in that they have done nothing illegal, and thus they don't deserve punishment.

Originally posted by Boshko
Still having a hard time understading how some people seem to think that making plans to **** a kid is worse than telling other people that a given person likes to **** kids, I've known far too many people who've had this sort of thing happen to them to have any sympathy for the pedos.

What sort of things? Consensual underage sex? I've known many too. To be honest, I think the age of consent is too high, and it should be up to the person if they want to have sex or not. I think consensual sex with a younger teenager is not as bad as ruining someones life, yes.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
did those people who's details were published commit a crime? Yes or No.

No. Having sex with someone underage is illegal. Wanting to, setting it up and talking about it to them, is not.

Will reply to Whaleboy's long post when I have time.

[Az]

Ah, fudge it. I still believe it's the utilitarian thing to do ( although altered )

[Drogue]

Really? You think wrecking the lives of that many people, but possibly having more underage sex, creates more happiness than it destroys? I think a site set up purely to voice hatred for people who the author doesn't agree with isn't the most utilitarian thing to do. And that's ignoring the precident it sets of vigilante justice, and that if someone disagrees with something, they can simply publish details of everyone that does it. Say, for example, someone publishes personal details of all the abortion doctors in the USA. They will be harassed by pro-lifers, punished, for doing something that is legal. Is that acceptable? If this site is allowed, there is nothing to stop people doing that either.

[Az]

Really? You think wrecking the lives of that many people, but possibly having more underage sex, creates more happiness than it destroys?

I fail to follow you.

[Whaleboy]

But they haven't actually gone. You don't know if they intend to go through with it, or, as many say, if they just wanted to see, but not go through with it.

Seems pretty ad hoc to me. Nonetheless, the risk these people pose is too great, and rationally, one would not compromise private information to who they believe to be a receptive individual, without the intention of carrying through. Since they have not committed a crime, the only way to combat their activites is legal (non police) means.

In your opinion. The law is a little different though, in that they have done nothing illegal, and thus they don't deserve punishment.

Its not punishment! . Any discomfort caused is consequential of others exercising their rights. And that is a matter of interpretation... too subjective to be used in an objective system of justice!

I think consensual sex with a younger teenager is not as bad as ruining someones life, yes.

Your opinion, and I would not consider a 12/13 year old girl to be able to decide to have sex or not. Mental preparedness comes later than physical in my and my friends experience. Taking active measures to arrange such sex, as lucid as ruining that persons life (consequentialist, thus very dodgy legal territory (for a good reason)). You're an 18/19 year old male. Do you consider it ok to **** a <=12/13 year old girl? I most certainly don't, and a communicated desire to do so would surely bring upon the communicated disapproval of others. This site (ideally) serves a conduit for that disapproval. Free speech mon ami!

Really? You think wrecking the lives of that many people, but possibly having more underage sex, creates more happiness than it destroys?

If you want to be taken seriously as a utilitarian, i.e. JS Mill, not James Mill, you will refer to greater welfare, as opposed to happiness. And yes it does. You talk to people who've had sex that young. How many, when reaching the age of 18, support that decision. Very few I think you will find. How many felt used and abused? We both live in the Northampton, the obvious answer surrounds us.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. That is, its the act that should bring about the best consequences (which holds numerous problems, but irrelavant mostly here). The conseqences of removing the threat of one paedophile by indirectly and via influence damaging his life, vs the alternative of allowing the risk of him harming others, via impedence, and I dare say more so, looking at the psychological problems suffered by those who engage in very underage sex.

Use the felicific calculus too. Intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity (problematic that one, hence I'm only utilitarian to a point), and extend.

In all but certainty, the FC shows that this website is right by utilitarianism.

And that's ignoring the precident it sets of vigilante justice

You take it that far with utility, you introduce the problem of the infinite regress. Utiltarianism (even classical), is consequentialist, but only by a relative. As such, the consequences of the uncertain risk this man poses, vs the certain consequences of actions, and as these are intended consequences, their dependents are affected by util. The felicific calculus holds here.

You need to stop using the fallacious notion of punishment. A punishment is not consequentialist (or rather, only directly as a result of ones actions, not by influence or the actionsof others, whose REACTION is consequential, but whose actions as a result are not). Indeed, if you want to talk about utility, then you are several generations of consequences away from a punishment. You should rather be talking about causality. Actions, resutl, result, result, result, result bites you in the arse. Life's a *****, and its the paedo's fault for pissing her off.

I fail to follow you.

Welcome to my world!

[Kuciwalker]

The simple fact is that it is not vigilantism, it is not punishment, and it is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of freedom of speech.

[Whaleboy]

Sky has summed up my argument in one line!

[Kuciwalker]

It's easier when you don't use words like " fecundity"

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
The simple fact is that it is not vigilantism, it is not punishment, and it is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of freedom of speech.

I don't see how you go from 'freedom of speech' to people to pretending to be 14 year old girls and tricking older men into planning a meeting for sex and giving you their address and contact information, and then stalking them, harrassing them, and slandering them to everyone they know. Where's the 'natural' connection?

[Whaleboy]

[POUTS] But it makes me look clever!! [/POUTS]

[Kuciwalker]

Well, if I'm free to say what I want (excluding libel, which is a special case), then I am free to tell people "this guy said such and such to me and so I think he's a pedophile". The people who own the site are exercising their freedom of speech.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Osweld
and slandering them to everyone they know.

Slander? I was under the impression that truth was the ultimate defense in cases like that.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
Well, if I'm free to say what I want (excluding libel, which is a special case), then I am free to tell people "this guy said such and such to me and so I think he's a pedophile". The people who own the site are exercising their freedom of speech.

But it's not a natural consequence of freedom of speech. If anything, it's an abuse.


There's a 'feminazi' website that snaps photos of people going into porn shops and posts their faceshot and license plate on the web accusing them of being rapists. Are you all OK with that, too?