PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker

No, it's not, actually. They where planning on meeting an adult who was pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

Wrong. The person was planning to meet a 14-year-old girl. If a guy in the Air Force recieves intel that some building had Hussein in it, but it really had Michael Jackson, he would still be planning to bomb Hussein.

Crapy analogy. Pilots don't flirt with the intel. The building doesn't proclaim itself a target, and they do not have personal 1 one 1 conversations, back and forth, with the people in the buidling before deciding if it needs to be 'bombed'.

[Kuciwalker]

So? The fact is, what you are PLANNING to do has nothing to do with what would actually occur and everything to do with what you believe would occur.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
So? The fact is, what you are PLANNING to do has nothing to do with what would actually occur and everything to do with what you believe would occur.

And they are lead to believe it by the people pretending to be 14 year olds. ie. entrapment, set up, scam.

The reason pedophilia is bad is because children can often be manipulated and taken advantage of. The people these so-called pedophiles are talking to, however, have the intellect of an adult.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
If the person TELLS the other person the personal details in a non-personal setting, then they are public! Elijah has been saying this over and over, but you don't seem to get it.

Elijah seems not to be getting that is IS in a personal setting. An IM conversation is a personal setting. If it was in the public domain, then it could be seen as postable, yes. That's fine. But it never was in the public domain untl they posted it.

[Az]

I was merely asking why you think the utilitarian thing to do is to wreck these peoples lives, because they want to have consensual sex with an underage girl. In some cases it may be, but overall, I think it causes a loss of utility.

WTF? An underage girl, or underage boy, etc. etc. We're catching paedophiles here... unless you think that paedophilia is utilitarian... ( which isn't true, since it scars the kids BAD )

[Whaleboy]

I understand that this is a personal setting. My argument stands. It does without saying that if its in public its public info. My argument is for private conversations. I do not require the consent of the other party unless they have copyright on what they've said, and to my knowledge, there are no such statements on IM systems.

[Drogue]

No im not. However I don't see and 18 year old trying to sleep with a 14 year old paedophilia. I think the age of consent should be dropped, since I think that the person can make their minds up about whether they're ready for sex or not.

Indeed, if what those people were doing is illegal, get the police involved and arrest them. I'm all for upholding the law. I'm very much against vigilante justice against things that are not illegal. Those people have done nothing illegal, and do not deserve their lives ruined.

[Kuciwalker]

And they are lead to believe it by the people pretending to be 14 year olds. ie. entrapment, set up, scam.

So? The statement "they were planning to do this" is equally true whether or not you led them to that decision.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm very much against vigilante justice against things that are not illegal. Those people have done nothing illegal, and do not deserve their lives ruined.

A) it is not vigilante justice: they are taking a normal social recourse to something they don't like. If I don't like someone, my friends and I would avoid that person. They are the same thing!

B) they "don't deserve to have their lives ruined": so WHAT? There is NO mandate for life to be "fair". It's not, there's nothing that can or should be done about it, sucks for you.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
A) it is not vigilante justice: they are taking a normal social recourse to something they don't like. If I don't like someone, my friends and I would avoid that person. They are the same thing!

No they're not. Telling the world to harass somebody is not the same as avoiding someone yourselves. If you avoid someone you don't breach their privacy. You do if you tell the world personal details.

Originally posted by skywalker
B) they "don't deserve to have their lives ruined": so WHAT? There is NO mandate for life to be "fair". It's not, there's nothing that can or should be done about it, sucks for you.

Should in your opinion. I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. I've seen huge defamation suits for far far less than that site has done, in this country. Moreover, taking law out of it, releasing personal information and asking people to harass them is wrong, to me.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker


So?

So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia.

[Kuciwalker]

No they're not. Telling the world to harass somebody is not the same as avoiding someone yourselves. If you avoid someone you don't breach their privacy. You do if you tell the world personal details.

"Telling the world to harrass somebody": so? The world doesn't have to comply, you know. If you have a conversation with a person, you can tell other people what that conversation was.

Should in your opinion. I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. I've seen huge defamation suits for far far less than that site has done, in this country. Moreover, taking law out of it, releasing personal information and asking people to harass them is wrong, to me.

There is no way to make this illegal without making things that are OBVIOUSLY valid exercises of freedom of expression illegal too. And if something is "wrong", to you, SO WHAT? That's subjective and not something we can argue, so shut up and stop spouting nonsense.

[Kuciwalker]

So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia.

Wrong. They are attracted to what they THINK is a young girl, so it IS paedophilia. If you showed me a hologram of a nude hot guy, and I couldn't tell it was a hologram (I thought it was real), and I was attracted to it, I WOULD STILL BE GAY, even though it wasn't "really" a hot nude guy.

[Kuciwalker]

No im not. However I don't see and 18 year old trying to sleep with a 14 year old paedophilia. I think the age of consent should be dropped, since I think that the person can make their minds up about whether they're ready for sex or not.

That has nothing to do with it. This activity would STILL be OK if sex with two-year-olds was legal - because it is purely exercise of freedom of speech.

[Shi Huangdi]

"So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia."

As has been mentioned repeatedly, the only people on that site are people who tried to set up sex with an underaged minor.

Keep in mind, while it might ruin's someone life, it is only as a result of what they have said. They will contact the person afterwards, but the personcan simply put the person on ignore/ hang up the phone, and it really isn't that many calls that would constitute repeated harrasment. As far as the life ruining- all they are doing is contacting people and letting them know the conversations they had. Why should they have a right to privacy in their attempts to pickup underaged children?

"I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. "

THe people on it are attempting to do something very harmful and very illegal.