I think the key word is accused opposed to confirmed guilty of rape or murder.
BTW If someone stole bread from your shop what would you do?

please what if they were innocent

GIVE HIM A MEDAL FOR MURDER!!!!! ITS NOT HIS JOB TO KILL OTHERS!!!!!!!!

SO ARE MURDERERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! this guy planned their murders and anyone who agrees with him killing them are just as sad as he is and of coarse he feels 'remorse' around the police that's only so he can be given a lighter sentance dur

The truth of the matter is Justice is a subjective concept. Each of us has our own concept of what that means, which is why the vast majority of victims feel so let down by the present legal system.
Mullen’s ‘victims’ were already convicted in a court of law. Their guilt is not in question. However, mullen decided true justice had not been served in one regard; their punishment.

My extra system of allowing the family members(murder) or victim(rape) to decide the extent of the punishment permits ‘true’ justice to be served. It means, you put your money where your mouth is. If you lean towards a more liberal sense of justice, fine! No problem, you can allow the perpetrator to have a shorter sentence.
If you say ‘go over the top’ and later you regret your original decision. Don’t worry, the current reform service will help you over come your terrible yet sincere burden of guilt.
lol

The only problem then would be that our legal system would then be based on vengeance, rather than justice.

aquatus, I hope if I'm ever on trial for anything that you're on jury duty.

An eye for an eye.

Let’s just say those victims turned out to be violent adults because of the molestation and became serial killers themselves, would it had not been justified to kill the child molester for fear of repeating?

Just a thought.

Not necessarily so; only if you see vengeance as an integral part of Justice.
If you don’t, fine. Remember; you’re allowed to decide the punishment.

Some people see vengeance as uncivilized, others see it as quite honorable.

I don't see the problem. The victims were sex offenders, its not like their lives are worth anything

Not just any sex offenders but Level III sex offenders; most likely to do it again, not considered "redeemed."

Mullen told police he was motivated by the case of Joseph Edward Duncan III, a Level III sex offender charged with killing a family in Idaho and kidnapping two children as sex slaves,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8485031

...leaves everyone blind.



What if those kids grew into into strong adults due to the early adversity in their lives, finding the cures for cancer, the answer to world peace, and a clean-burning source of energy? Speculations such as these are, ultimately, pointless. There is no way to know what the outcome will be in the future.




The only cultures I know about that equate vengeance with justice have extremely well-defined social classes and moral codes. America is a more mutt-ish type of country, and cannot claim anything of the kind. Any type of system that we create in this manner would be, in the end, be artificial, and would require just as much adaption from those who disagree with it as our current system requires.



The problem that you don't see is this: you have no idea what crime they committed. You have a vague notion that 'sexual molestation' happened, but you have no idea what it consisted of or to what extent it occured. You automatically assume aggravated rape in a definition that includes fondling.

In short, you are saying that it is just as justifiable to execute a man in his own home for fondling as it is to execute a man in his own home for rape, to say nothing of executing a man in his own home simply because you disagreed with what 12 other people who heard every fact of the case (which none of us here have, and which Mullen did not) decided in accordance with the law, would be an appropriate punishment.



True. But again, let's not assume aggravated rape without knowing it exists. Level III means that they are not considered to have changed their basic nature. The same can be said of homosexuals. If their crime is sexual attraction to children (or members of the same gender), and sexual attraction to children is as biological and unchoose-able as homosexuality, then we are essentially condemning people to either a lifetime of ostrazisation or a lifetime of denying their own sexuality.

It doesn't mean they can't be

Its not right that thay put him a jail. People like him have bin proven to have a mental deseas close to that of a masiya complex. He should be put in a mental helth clinic not jail in jail thay will just give him a new group of demons for his hunt.

mmmh as long as you're not too partronizing to american culture.



Oh dear… I was prepared to let you off with your position in regards that pedophiles couldn’t change their inherent nature to be attracted to children but saying that it’s inherent for sex offenders to offend, really is amazing. And please, being a pedophile is not part of a civil rights movement.

Nice one , so you’re prepared to let the sex offenders live next door to you.
Good to see you put your money when your mouth is.

No? I didn’t think so..

this is just pure ignorance they did their time in Jail for what they did. i'm not condoning what they did but that still doesn't give you the right to murder them. i hope the man who did has a 'fun' time where he is going...................

Let's hope a pedophile doesn’t attack the children of anyone you know.


But don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll forgive them because you’re such a nice person.
lol

Yeah I agree; especially if I committed the crime. good point michelle

thankfully i don't have any children yet rapid7 but if i did and this happened to them yes i would be very angry but killing them?! NO i would be just as bad as them and my hands too would be tainted by a terrible deed

Fair enough!
My system would allow you to do that.
True justice, for the people by the people.

I beg your pardon? I consider American culture to be among the healthiest in the world, in large part due to it's lack of central focus. Whatever insecurities you may have with thinking that anyone might think America is less than perfect, deal with them yourself. The simple fact of the matter is that, for better or for worse (and I believe for the better), America does not have official social classes, nor clearly defined moral codes.



Let me off? How presumptious.



...

I can't say I recall saying this, but regardless, I agree with it. Sex offenders are, statistically, likely to re-offend, and Level III is a designation for those who are have already offended and are considered at high risk to re-offend. It's a legal definition, so I'm really not sure where your astonishment stems from. If you have an issue with it, I recommended you take it up with the congressmen who created the definition.



Actually, it is. Much like Suffrage, much like the Civil Rights movement , much like animal rights, and much like the Gay Rights movement, Pedophiles are slowly gathering, spreading information, encouraging tolerance and recognition, and pretty much going the same way of all groups that wish recognition for what they are.



Let's hope that no one, pedophile or otherwise, attcks anyones children, but that is simply the one of dangers of the world we live in.



Good luck with that. I have no problem accepting you if you are a pedophile. I have a major problem if you are a rapist, particularly if your victims are children.

Ahhhh o.k rapid7 what is this system of yours?!

You were implying americans couldn't use revenge as part of their justice system.

Bothered.


What are you on about?



Oh dear oh dear. One problem. You see, those groups emancipated themselves!
It only worked because the silent majority actually agree with their causes.

Somehow I haven’t seen any pedophiles holding demo marches, have you?
And I don’t think the silent majority would agree with them.
Could you imagine;
“I have a dream, where pedophiles walk hand in hand with normal folk”
Or
“All we are saying is give pedophiles a chance.”
Please..



Oh lardi da. Thanks to liberal twonks, that danger has increased.



lol what a simple attempt at flaming.
Judging by the way you stick up pedophiles so much, one has to question your motives.

No, I was saying it outright. Our legal system is not based on vengeance. This is why people who are too directly involved with the crime are not allowed to participate in the judgement.



This: "but saying that it’s inherent for sex offenders to offend, really is amazing."

No idea where you got that from, or what the relevance is.



And this group is seeking to emancipate itself. I'd ask what the silent majority thinks, but it's not talking.



Thirty years ago, people were shocked that a state would decriminilize homosexuality. Fifty years ago, people laughed at the idea that black students and white students could go to school together . One hundred fifty years ago, a man made the comment "To think that women should be given the same rights as men is as ridiculous as thinking that animals should be given rights as well!"

And the silent majority agreed with these groundbreakers?

Bullsh*t.



Considering that it wasn't a flame, that's not a surprise.






How very clever and witty of you! Goodness, I didn't see it coming at all!

No doubt, you will make an undoubtedly original attempt to respond with a sarcastic "Thank you!" to the above comment.

Did I call it or what?

Yes thanks, I think we already know this. Besides we weren’t talking about the current Justice system in regards to revenge; We were actually talking about my hypothetical Justice system. Nevermind.



Of course, the silent majority agreed; otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.
Goodluck with your pedophile civil rights movement.



Ok.. if you insist. So, before the civil rights movement every white person was a racist?
btw lol I could almost imagine you slamming your clenched fist on your computer desk.




Love it. Ain’t got the balls to admit a flame. lol



Look at me everyone..



Yes you're amazing.
I did notice your disclaimer. And yet you rather slyly suggested I could be a pedophile.
A tad hypocritical me thinks. No doubt you will imply I merely misunderstood; am I amazing or what?

Very well, I shall "let you off".



Ain't mine. I'll support it, but I'm not going to be hanging posters. Too many people like you around.



Yes, you do seem to have quite the imagination. Before the civil rights movement, no, not everyone was a racist. The vast majority, however, simply did not believe that negroes deserved or could handle the same rights as white people. If you wish to call it racism, call it racism due to ignorance, rather than any sort of internal or emotional edict.



Not really. I am simply secure enough in my masculity to not have to engage in such little boy level retorts. If you wish to continue to call my sexuality or virility into question, go right ahead.



No, but you are extremely short minded. I neither suggested that you were either a rapist or a pedophile. You did.

"Yeah I agree; especially if I committed the crime. good point michelle thumbsup.gif"

You presented the example with yourself as the criminal. I simply followed your example. You then proceeded to act as if I had, out of nowhere, flamed you and proceed to slyly suggest that I was a pedophile.

If you wish to argue the point about 'your' system, or about pedophile and rapists being one and the same, I have no issue with that. I will ask, however, that you cease these infantile digs about balls and pedophilic tendencies. You'll note that I have not attacked you for your moral views on any matter.

you two need to have a debate thread

Too many people like me around? If you mean, am I bigoted because I don’t like pedophiles, I don’t like level III sex offenders and I especially don’t like pedophiles who are level III Sex offenders, then fine; I am a bigot.
I didn’t realize you were so bigotphobic lol



Thanks, point conceded then.



My, what a delicate flower you are. Don’t take it so seriously.
I suggest you stop watching ’12 angry men’ for the 104th time and catch some fresh air. I don’t know.. take a walk in a park.. although don’t stray too near any playgrounds.
We wouldn’t want any members of the public thinking you’re a pedophile.



Reminds me of my old school report. Head masters comments.
Actually, come to think of it he was convicted of possessing indecent photos of children.



My sarcastic, yet dare I say it, well timed response merely indicated she didn’t state whether she committed the crime or not. So actually having someone like you on the jury would not be considered a compliment.



Oh so sly. Like I said; a simple attempt at flaming. lol



Woah talk about putting words in my mouth. If you check my past posts, it was actually you who responded to ‘my’ hypothetical justice system. I believe you inaccurately stated it would lead to a system based solely upon revenge.



I took it you didn’t attack me on my moral views simply because my moral views are irrefutable.
Well, if you’re going to insist that pedophilia should be consider as some sort of civil rights movement what can I say?
Btw Is that your ‘real’ view or merely part of a ‘pseudo intellectual masturbatory logical exercise' ™

No. Too many people who will immediately accuse anyone who supports something they do not believe to be acceptable as practioners of that.



I had to look up "12 Angry Men". So, is all this a genuine attempt at making peace, or are you just 'flaming' away?



Ironic.



Is that what this is about? You thought I was getting complimented me, so you...what, decided to null the compliment?

What for? What do you care if someone compliments me?



**shrugs**

As I said, think of it as a flame if you like. You are seeing insults where none exist.



No, not lead to; start as. I said that a system like that would be a system based on revenge, and such a system would not work in America, due to a lack of central agreement on what is suitable punishment and what isn't.



No moral view is irrefutable. It is sheer arrogance to think that any given moral code can be used universally for anyone in any situation.



Are you really incapable of carrying on a conversation without referring to some sort of sexual function or body part?

In all cases, yes, it is an actual movement, with actual groups, web sites, and meetings.

Rapid, I am asking again nicely, stop the flaming.

Is that an attempt at flaming? If you could point out what you consider to be a flame, I'd appreciate it. And I’d also appreciate if you admit when you’re flaming.

eg I think many people would consider you trying to equate pedophilia to a civil rights movement as flaming; let alone that you personally support such a movement.
I believe you knew this from the start and this was your primary intention.
And yet you dare to imply I was flaming?!
I’m happy if you wish to take this up with a moderator.
But in my book, if you do this, you’ve already lost the argument.
Remember, it was you that has steered this thread off course. My hypothetical justice system would eliminate to need for vigilantes such as Mullen to take the law into his hands. I don’t think he acted in revenge as such; he just wanted to find a sure way to protect children from pedophilic level III sex offenders.

peace

with this topic,i'm sitting on the fence about what should have happened

No, it is a direct request to cease your attacks.



I consider the following to be flames:



Every one of these comments was made with no relevance to the actual topic, and solely for the purpose of ridiculing me. In order, you made digs at my personal qualities, including, in order, my sexual preference, my resoning ability, my courage, my objectivity, my masculinity, again my sexual preference, a third time my sexual preference, again my courage, and again my resoning.



The comments that I made to deride you would be the following:



I apologize for these. I maintain that the original comment you claim was a flame I did not make as a flame, and will not apologize for that one.



They would be wrong. Flames are personal attacks, not moral views. Equating pedophilia to a civil rights movement is not flaming; insinuating someone is a pedophile is flaming.



And you are wrong. Up until you jumped in, the conversation was quite civil and enjoyable, and actually on topic.



No, I say it outright, and I gave the specific examples of it.



Of course you do. It's nice to know that you acknowledge that having a third party read your posts would be bad for you, and your only recourse is to pretend that I am a coward for even thinking about it (Which was, apparently, your first fear).



Not at all. The whole point of the thread was to comment on whether Mullen was justified in his acts or not. I have been presenting the opposite side of an argument that had been singularly one-sided up till that point.



I disagree. I believe that Mullen may have convinced himself of that, but sincerely think the man was disturbed. He wasn't looking to protect children; he was looking for fame and attention. Remember, he was hoping for the death sentence so that he would become a martyr.



I have no problem with peace, as long as you stick to the discussion and cease your personal attacks. This is the third time I have made that request.

Well, what you personally consider to be flaming is me merely trying to get you answer my original question. For example; when I made the comment ‘aint got the balls to admit it’
It was not, repeated not a question of your masculinity or virility but merely a small test to see if you’re a ‘straight talker’ only a fool would consider otherwise.
Btw you failed.
In fact you’ve tried every trick in the book to avoid straight answers and merely suggest I’m flaming you. Highly immature and a tad pompous in my book.
Really if you’re not up for a more vigorous debate I suggest you simply ignore my posts and ‘stay out of my way’.

You have repeatedly made the point; Pedophiles should be considered as part of a civil rights movement. A quite patently ridiculous concept and an insult to legitimate civil rights. So yes, your ‘reasoning’ is in question.

My original question is; “Is this your personal view or some kind of obscure debating point?”
I’m sorry but you have not made this clear at all and yes, this is highly relevant to the debate. Moral views and personal views are one and the same.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the idea of arguing from an obscure point of view.
I’ve had to this many times in my life. Not a problem.
However, it’s a problem in this debate because every time I consider it to be your obscure debating point, you seem to prove me wrong by getting all ‘emotional’. Why?

The fact that you seem to get all ‘hot and bothered’ implies to me to have a vested interest in making the point that pedophilia is a legitimate human rights cause.
What is that vested interest?
The reason I ask is because it’s a well known fact, genuine pedophiles try every trick in the book to legitimize their deviant desires. Disclaimer or no disclaimer.
So again it is obviously legitimate to the debate.

Besides if this is your genuine view point; why would you consider me implying you’re a pedophile as an insult? After all, according to you, it is a noble cause worth fighting for.
I on the other hand was insulted when you implied I was a pedophile and not impressed when you couldn’t even admit it.

On many different threads, I have noticed you have always argued from the conservative rational viewpoint, yet the mere mention of pedophilia and suddenly you change your tact.
It’s time to shut up or put up. Please be clearer in future posts to avoid confusion; so at least we know what your genuine position really is.
You logic is faulty; if you accept pedophilia as a legitimate moral cause then by the same logic you’re going to have to accept or ‘tolerate’ no doubt what you would consider ‘bigots’ killing them.

No, no. There are a hundred and one ways in which you can get a person to answer your questions (which, incidentaly, I did the first time you asked; you simply do not believe me). What you chose to do is a series of personal attacks, and that is called flaming.



Straight talker indeed

You were testing nothing. You had already decided that you were being insulted and you decided to insult in return. Don't try and pretend otherwise.



I told you straight out that I was not flaming you, and you chose to call me a liar. Since you cannot quite seem to get it through your head, I will explain it in detail to you:



You have two choices here: Either you are using "I" in the first person, meaning that you are using yourself as an example (which is what I thought, considering that you italized the words), and I simply followed up using you as an example (again, as an example, not a personal attack), or you used "I" in the more general sense of "anyone", in which case my use of the word you, would also have to be considered the general 'You" and not specifically you personally.

Either way, you were not being flamed. Deal with it.



I have no problem with debating the topic. You seem fixated on speculating what my sexual preferences are.



Why is it ridiculous? Why is it any sillier than Gay Rights? What is the difference?



No, that was around your third question, and the wording was: ""Btw Is that your ‘real’ view or merely part of a ‘pseudo intellectual masturbatory logical exercise' ™""

Frankly, it seemed rhetorical. I can't imagine that you would have asked the question seriously and worded it in such a manner.

In all cases, assuming you do want an answer, I consider the pedophile movement in its infancy. As I said, people are essentially gathering and spreading the word, encouraging their members to "come out" to their families and such. There are several web sites devoted to the matter; I'm certain you can google some.



Not so much emotional as irritated. I get the same way when I defend Gay Rights and get accused of being a homosexual. It's such a childish tactic (generally speaking, and not intended as a direct insult to you). It's so facile to claim that someone is part of the movement they defend, as if a person wouldn't be capable of defending something that wouldn't benifit them in any way.



It's more the desire to play the devil's advocate, combined with irritation at the insinuation of pedophilia.

Incidentally, what makes you think a total stranger would answer a question like that on a public forum? You haven't exactly shown anything that would indicate that you would do anything other than scorn and ridicule anyone who admitted to being a pedophile.



Can't see how. Genuine anythings try to legitimize their desires, deviant or otherwise. In the case of pedophilia, first it would have to be established that it is a deviant behaviour. Do you consider homosexuality a deviant behaviour? Do homosexuals have to "try every trick in the book to legitimize their deviant desires"?



Same reason I would be bothered to be called a homosexual. Because I am not one. Most of the irritation comes from the actual argument being used. Again, it's just so damn childish.



Well, I have already told you that I was not insulting you before, I have insulted you since, and I have even gone through and explained why the former wasn't and insult and listed the latter ones I meant as an insult. Frankly, I have gone above and beyond on the subject, and I will not waste any time on it. Either you believe or you do not, but I have said the last I will say on the subject.



Yes, it's quite a volatile subject, as I mentioned before. In regards to a conservative viewpoint, that is quite likely because the majority of my posts concern science and skepticism, a subject in which I most definitely follow a conservative track. In regards to society in general, I have been to entirely too many different cultures and met entirely too many different kind of people to be limited in my mind-set (Heck, I worked my way through college as a Passion Parties Consultant).



I hope it is completly clear at this point?



...

You lost me there.

How is accepting pedophilia as a legitimate moral cause the same as accepting murder as a legitimate moral cause? The entire purpose of any group wanting civil rights is specifically to be protected against such things as being executed in their own homes. Should black people accept that anyone who objects that negroes are equals have the right to kill them? Should homosexuals be treated as second-hand citizens because they desire members of the same sex, regardless of whether they are acting on it or not?

I see the pompous tone is back again.
Yeah good luck with that. I have no problem accepting you as a ‘dork’ but I do have a problem if you’re a pedophile.
Now do you consider that flaming? I hope you see the connection with your original flame.



Have you not heard the term ‘aint got the balls’ as a figure of speech? Rise up to the challenge. The way you interpreted it as a ‘flaming attempt’ was purposely manipulative and deceptive.



Yeah, last of the straight talkers. Sounds like you swallowed a dictionary.
See first reply.



I have; please don’t make me repost it again. Once again if someone ‘flames’ me I only fire back once. It is you that has continued the debate in this manner. And to be honest I find this behavior suspicious.



Yes because it is central to the argument. Seeing as you’re not a straight talker I was not prepared to risk debating with a pedophile. Normally I would agree with you and only attack the arguments; but I’m really not clear with whom I’m debating with?
I don’t debate with pedophiles and I don’t waste my time with ‘devil advocate’ arguments.
You have not made your position clear. A disclaimer means nothing. If fact you’ve done the opposite. It’s like me writing a disclaimer saying I’m not racist and then proceed to make racist comments for the next four pages of the thread.



Again no, you have not made it clear at all. Sounds like you’ve done a lot of research into the subject.
The first time I ever heard of pedophilia being considered as a legitimate human rights movement was by you.
No doubt some people do consider homosexuals as being deviant. I’m not one of them and I’m not gay either.
However it doesn’t bother me what two consenting adults do as long as they’re not hurting anyone.
Btw I believe the majority of homosexual men would be completely offended by your rather tenuous connection with pedophilia. The central point to the Gay rights movement was to convince people they were not threat to anyone. Eventually the silent majority agreed with them. You will not see this with pedophilia. Do you understand?



I wouldn’t. I’d expect a pedophile to be evasive, muddled, manipulative, humorless and say things like ‘pedophilia should be considered a legitimate civil rights movement'.



Sorry, you’re still coming across as confused. I don’t waste my time with devil advocate arguments (especially if it’s not clearly defined) if this is still your central theme.
I consider it nothing more than an attempt to try and impressive people with their ‘oh so clever’ debating skill. Looks like my ‘look at me’ comment was in fact an accurate assessment.
I call it ‘pseudo intellectual masturbatory logical exercise' ™
Again, I’m not flaming; that is my genuine opinion!
No offence but I prefer to debate with someone who genuinely believes their own arguments.
It’s a waste of time otherwise; I prefer to know what the person would really do if they find themselves in that situation.
I do not advocate the killing of non practicing pedophiles because to the outside world they would be considered asexual.
mmmh Looks like Mullen also agreed with me and made sure his targets were level III sex offenders.
Our system is based upon reform. Even the parole board made the assessment they were unreformable(sic).
The amount of political pressure and internal pressure from the justice system not to categorize sex offenders as level III is amazing. Why? Because it is a statement our justice system is not working. When the justice system fails you get vigilantes.

[quote name='rapid7' date='Apr 24 2006, 06:10 AM' post='1161118']
I see the pompous tone is back again.
Yeah good luck with that. I have no problem accepting you as a ‘dork’ but I do have a problem if you’re a pedophile.
Now do you consider that flaming? I hope you see the connection with your original flame.[/quote]

I repeat, you are seeing an insult were none exists.

[quote]Have you not heard the term ‘aint got the balls’ as a figure of speech? Rise up to the challenge. The way you interpreted it as a ‘flaming attempt’ was purposely manipulative and deceptive. [/quote]

You called me a liar. And a coward.

[quote] Yeah, last of the straight talkers. Sounds like you swallowed a dictionary.
See first reply.[/quote]

I am an English major, and in the top 2% of the United States in speech and comprehension. I will not apologize for having a better vocabulary than yourself.

[quote]I have; please don’t make me repost it again. Once again if someone ‘flames’ me I only fire back once. It is you that has continued the debate in this manner. And to be honest I find this behavior suspicious.[/quote]

It occurs to me that, through this entire time, you have been focusing this argument not on the actual topic, but specifically on me. Rapid, could it be that you are actually hesitant to speak about pedophilia and its place in society?

[quote]Yes because it is central to the argument. Seeing as you’re not a straight talker I was not prepared to risk debating with a pedophile. Normally I would agree with you and only attack the arguments; but I’m really not clear with whom I’m debating with?[/quote]

If it was not clear before, I will repeat it yet again. I am not a pedophile. Please proceed to attacking the arguments.

[quote]You have not made your position clear. A disclaimer means nothing. If fact you’ve done the opposite. It’s like me writing a disclaimer saying I’m not racist and then proceed to make racist comments for the next four pages of the thread. [/quote]

As long as you have made it clear that you are playing the devil's advocate and ir is clear that your racist comments actually have something to do with the topic, as opposed to being nothing more than personal attacks, no, there is no problem with that approach. It is a difficult and delicate one, to be sure, as it is a very touchy subject, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

And, once again, I am not a pedophile, since that seems so important to you.

[quote]Again no, you have not made it clear at all. Sounds like you’ve done a lot of research into the subject. [/quote]

Once more, I am not a pedophile. Clear enough yet? Probably not.

And yes, human sexuality is a subject of great fascination for me, and I have studied it extensively. I have quite a library on the subject, in fact

[quote]The first time I ever heard of pedophilia being considered as a legitimate human rights movement was by you. [/quote]

Okay. And what? That means it didn't exits before?

[quote]No doubt some people do consider homosexuals as being deviant. I’m not one of them and I’m not gay either. [/quote]

No one ever said, implied, or insinuated you were. I am not asking you about your personal stance on the subject, however. I am asking about the position you are taking in regardes to this argument. For the purposes of this discussion, do you consider homosexuality to be a deviant behaviour (and please define "deviant", so that we understand what your point of view is).

[quote]However it doesn’t bother me what two consenting adults do as long as they’re not hurting anyone.[/quote]

That's nice, but again, I'm more interested in your position in the argument, not your personal views.

[quote]Btw I believe the majority of homosexual men would be completely offended by your rather tenuous connection with pedophilia. The central point to the Gay rights movement was to convince people they were not threat to anyone. Eventually the silent majority agreed with them. You will not see this with pedophilia. Do you understand?[/quote]

I understand, and I even agree to the extent that many homosexuals would be offended, particularly since pedophilia was one of the first things that homosexuals were accused of simply by the fact of being homosexuals.

I will not, however, agree that pedophilia will never be mainstream. Or rather, will never be mainstream again. Far stranger things than that have happened.

[quote]I wouldn’t. I’d expect a pedophile to be evasive, muddled, manipulative, humorless and say things like ‘pedophilia should be considered a legitimate civil rights movement'. [/quote]

Of course you would. After all, it wouldn't occur to you that pedoiphiles might actually be ordinary people, people who can think, talk, reason, and joke around just like anyone else.

[quote]Sorry, you’re still coming across as confused. I don’t waste my time with devil advocate arguments (especially if it’s not clearly defined) if this is still your central theme.
I consider it nothing more than an attempt to try and impressive people with their ‘oh so clever’ debating skill. Looks like my ‘look at me’ comment was in fact an accurate assessment.[/quote]

Still confused, I take it? Once more then, I am not a pedophile.

And what's this about not wasting your time with Devil's Advocate arguments? Didn't you just say that "Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the idea of arguing from an obscure point of view. I’ve had to this many times in my life. Not a problem."

It does seem that you do have a problem, Rapid. One one hand, you say you have no problem arguing the issue, on the other you say that you refuse to debate the opposite side. Granted, you said that you have no intention of debating with a pedophile, but I have repeatedly assured that I am not one, so unless you wish to once again call me a liar, "put up or shut up".

[quote]I call it ‘pseudo intellectual masturbatory logical exercise' ™
Again, I’m not flaming; that is my genuine opinion! [/quote]

You are doing both. Refering to someone else's argument as a masturbatory exercise would be considered flaming.

[quote]No offence but I prefer to debate with someone who genuinely believes their own arguments. It’s a waste of time otherwise; I prefer to know what the person would really do if they find themselves in that situation.[/quote]

The answer to that is quite clearly made in the very comment that you decided to take as a personal insult. To re-iterate:

1) I am not a pedophile.

2) I support the pedophile's right to not be ostrazised for his sexual preferences, nor to be judged on the basis of popular conception of pedophilia, but as an individual person.

3) If anyone, pedophile or otherwise, rapes a small child, they should expect the full force of the law to be brought down upon their heads.


[quote]I do not advocate the killing of non practicing pedophiles because to the outside world they would be considered asexual.
mmmh Looks like Mullen also agreed with me and made sure his targets were level III sex offenders. [/quote]

Do you agree with Mullen that a criminal who has been lawfully tried, sentenced, and punished should also expect to be executed in his own home?

[quote]Our system is based upon reform. Even the parole board made the assessment they were unreformable(sic). [/quote]

Our system is based on penitence, meaning that our punishments are meant to invoke in the punished a feeling of regret for their wrongdoing (hence, "penitentiary"). The government isn't interested in whether your personal feelings have changed, but rather that you don't commit your crimes again. Because of this, people who are considered high risk are released; they are sentenced

[quote]The amount of political pressure and internal pressure from the justice system not to categorize sex offenders as level III is amazing. Why? Because it is a statement our justice system is not working. When the justice system fails you get vigilantes.[/quote]

Can you support this? How do you conclude that the pressure you speak of exists, and how do you conclude that the cause of this pressure is a fault in our justice system?

Rapid, could it be that you don't want to focus on the topic because thinking that pedophilia might be as normal and common as homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, and the idea of having to admit that there is no moral difference between the two is abhorrent to you?

Agreed aquatus

Yes sir! I'm calling you a liar a coward and a c... lol just kidding. I love the liar and coward bit very nineteenth century.



Top 2%? give me a call when you make it in the 0.003% club.
See, wasn't too hard to say...I am not a pedophile. Such a simple yet beautifully crafted sentence.


Yeah, I heard you the first time.


Ok.



No contradiction. My obscure arguments are based upon real events from a personal perspective.



I wouldn't say 'assured' as such; repetition does not make a good argument.
To be fair, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just I don't use 'acts of faith' in such matters. Have you any supporting evidence?
I merely implied you may be a pedophile yet you have made the statement 'I'm not a pedophile' can you back up this statement? Judging by some of your arguments, some would say this is an extraordinary claim.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan.

No one likes a psycho elephant or a… sycophant come to think of it.

No flaming - This includes making personal attacks against other members, verbal abuse, starting knowingly offensive topics, mocking or being offensive towards someone. Such posts or topics will be removed or closed by a moderator on sight.

Yes good point. No flaming but perhaps maybe just a light grilling. I mean we wouldn't want a pedophile prowling the UM forum would we? Well, some of us wouldn’t!
If you're supporting pedophilia as a legitimate civil rights movement; why would you take offence if someone suggested you may be a pedophile?
50 yrs ago if I genuinely supported the Gay movement and someone suggest I was gay for doing so, I wouldn't be offended. Why would I? How could I be offended if I supported a movement I considered being a noble worthy cause?
Anyway let this be the end of the matter.

I have great deal of sympathy for Michael Mullen.
If a pedophile attacked my friends or family, would I take the law into my own hands? Definitely!
Yet Mullen, with no thought of personal safety for himself, decided to ‘wide out’ a nest of level III pedophilic sex attackers. They were strangers to him; he didn’t do it merely as an act of personal revenge. No, with Michael, we see no such selfishness. Instead he was civic minded enough to help those who couldn’t defend themselves; children.

He didn’t just pick out someone accused of pedophilia and act irrationally like some moron. He made sure his targets were guilty who also displayed a high probability that they were beyond redemption and highly likely to re-offend!
Good judgment call.
He displayed bravery, cunning, intelligence and a certain amount of grace in the execution of his mission. There is no doubt in mind he saved many ‘future victims’ from these vile creatures and in the course of doing so sacrificed his own freedom.

there's something suspicious about three level III sex offenders hanging out together anyways... it really can't be a good thing. i doubt they were having tea and chatting about the weather.

No harassment or hate related posts - We have zero tolerance for those who harass or victimise other members in any way; racism, hatred related posts, retaliation, the spreading of rumours or harassing members via e-mail or private messenger

But what if the child wants to have consetual sex would it be wrong if both parties wished to have sex

oh and i doubt aquatus is a pedophile

yeah ain't that the truth.
And who would want to live next to them? certainly not the oh so rationally minded pedo supporters .

What if this man killed 2 homosexuals

Yes, it was an insult back then, and it is an insult today.



Are you saying that you are?



Rapid, this is sounding a tad desperate. Do I have any supporting evidence that I am not a pedophile? No, I do not. I also have no supporting evidence that I am not a homosexual, a heterosexual, or any other given sexual persuasion.

Heck, being that we are on the internet, I don't even have any supporting evidence that I am not a purple polka-dotted unicorn with excellent typing abilities.



And I would say that this is nothing more than your continued attempts to avoid the subject and instead trying to focus on myself. What for? In an effort to avoid talking about something that makes you uncomfortable and calls into question your moral ground. You keep trying to divert attention away from the topic and onto me, and yes, you are making personal accusations, and yes, it is clear that when you accuse someone of being a pedophile, you (yourself, personally) are insulting them.



You might have missed it before in your focused search to accuse me of pedophilia; I find the argument childish and facile, which is what is irritating. The actual charge is a mild nuisance, mostly due to the social stigma of it, but it is really the childishness of accusing someone of being a pedophile because they defend pedophiles that bugs me. It reminds me of the playgrounds where children accuse their mates of being 'homos' without even having a clear understanding of what the term means.



Well, that is cerrtainly one way of looking at it. I disagree, myself. Mullen didn't decide to "wide out" a nest; he decided to kill a pedophile, and when he found more than one there, he decided to kill the others too. He decided that he, and not the people who are actually studied and trained in psychology and psychiatry, was qualified to decide who was regretful and who wasn't, and based solely on his own opinion, he didn't kill the third one.

Bravery? No, going to a stranger's home, tricking your way in as a federal officer, and executing them is not bravery. Cunning? Hell, he didn't even stake out the place. An idiot would have noticed that the man had company. What would he have done if the other two hadnt been pedophiles? Intelligence? What in everything that he did implies any sort of intelligence? Sacrifice? Hardly. Wanting to die for your cause isn't sacrifice. It's martyrdom. And its fanaticism.



Depends on where you live and what the age of consent is. If it is against the law, it is wrong. If you are in Kansas and you marry a twelve-year old, go to it. In other states, you have to be eighteen, and not one day less.



Who would want to live next to a sexual criminal of any kind? Particularly someone who assaults children? Being a pedo supporter does not mean that you support sexual crimes against children. If anything, it means that you fight against them even more strongly.

I find this extremely hard to believe. I think it means trying to convice the public that some children WANT to have sex with men. That is what I have gleaned from this entire 10 pages of postings. Also it seems that you feel that fondling is not nearly as bad as rape. It is still abuse and it needs to be punished. Children are NOT the same as consenting adults and anyone who tries to blur this line is just plain wrong.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? The question isn't about what the average person thinks that pedophiles do, but rather what it is that they actually do. Perhaps you are correct, but are you correct because you have gone to pro-pedophile sites and read their mission statements, or is it because you decided, for whatever reason, that this is what pedophiles do (essentially, try to justify having sex with children)?



I'm afraid that the line isn't anywhere near as clear as you would like it to be. Children are most definitely not the same as consenting adults, I'm sure everyone can agree on that, but please, tell, me, when is a child an adult? How can you tell, asides from the legal age of consent laws (I hope we can agree that age of consent laws do not automatically grant a given child the wisdom and maturity that comes with being an adult?)

Another blurry subject is fondling vs rape. Now, you asked it, so I will answer: no, I do not believe that fondling is inherently as bad as rape. It is still abuse, and it still needs to be punished, but there is a reason why different words are used for different acts, and why a jury of people, as opposed to a computer, are used to judge case. There is no concrete line. There is only what a jury of your peers decide on.

regardless of motive, the dude broke the law, which we cannot ignore. he will likely only serve
two thirds of his sentence anyway, but I doubt anyone would give him any trouble: truth be told we have all wanted to have free reign on paedophiles but the law is the law.