How comes every time the news reports a case of child abduction
 

they emphasize the fact that the abduction was done by a pedophile? Being a pedophile isn't what was inherently wrong with the crime, the abduction is. Feeling an attraction to something can't actually do any damage to it. So why the emphasis on how evil and vile those terrible pedos are? Shouldn't we be worried about murderers, rapists, and kidnappers as opposed to what they feel attracted to? Or am I nuts and the only person who notices or thinks the news has a bad habbit of reporting this way?

There's a contradiction in your post.
You complain about the media blaming pedos for every abduction, which is fair comment, but then you put this;

It's not always pedophiles who abduct children. Sometimes it's a spiteful parent or crazy childless hag.

But it all boils down to sensationalism in the media. "Child gone missing" fails in comparison to "Convicted child rapist abducts children for devious act."

Facetiousness doesn't work well over the intertubes. Of course I don't view someone as being "evil" or "vile" because they feel attracted to something slightly out of the norm.

THE UNFAN: PROTECTOR AND SUPPORTER OF PEDOPHILES AND THE PARADIGM THEY PURPORT TO PERPETUATE.

how does it feel to be a pedo-lover? sick bastard

Whose being facetious?
I'm merely pointing out that I thought you may have contradicted yourself in that post and because of it, could have led to a misunderstanding of your point.
I was unsure if you meant to use the word pedo in inverted commas or not.
If you did, then I understand your post.
If not, then your post is ridiculous, not to mention incredibly ignorant.

For example;

as opposed to;

Then to confuse matters;

^ WTF! See how this can be so easily misconstrued?
Surely you're not defending the actions of a paedophile?

I was only giving you the opportunity to clarify your stance.
It seems "Facetiousness" isn't the only thing that doesn't work well over the "intertubes".

So what is it...are you defending pedos and clearly insane, or are you making a point about the sensationalism of the media?

Is this what you mean Unfan?...

Both, sort of. I don't think anyone should be socially ostricized based on sexual attraction. I'm probably missing something here, but why does fantasizing about wanting to diddle little kid parts make you a bad person? It isn't the pedophiles who should be under attack by the media and society as a whole, as having a sexual attraction to something can't actually cause harm to it.

He is.


As I understand it his point is that whether or not someone is attracted to children is irrelevant to a news article about a child abduction unless the child is fiddled in the process. That being attracted to children isn't a crime, but acting upon said attraction is. Therefore sensationalist media that reports on an abduction by a paedophile shouldn't use shock tactics and throw around the word to promote interest in the article, unless paedophilic acts are performed in the abduction.

And even then the fact that the person is a pedophile doesn't even matter, and isn't the issue at all. In fact, I don't even understand why anyone would be up in arms over someone's sexual preference. The fact is that said person would be a rapist and raping someone is wrong because you're forcing a non-consenting party into a potentially harmful situation.

I would argue that due the emotional instability of a child, paedophillic acts are worse than rape on account of how much harder it is to reverse the damage caused. Though I agree that someone should not be chastened for their sexual preferences, acting upon them (in certain cases) is a bad idea, and paedophillia is one of the worst things you can come up with to act upon.

they emphasize that it was done by a pedo when it was done by a pedo so that the general public is a little more aware and on the look out for said pedo.

think about it for a little longer... if you hear about a small child being abducted in your town and the news reports it as being done by a parent are you going to get involved in their domestic dispute? probably not that much.

now if you hear some pedo snatched a kid from your town are you going to react the same way? **** no. i think it's a fair bet the general public of that area are being a little more vigilant in observing odd behavior right now. if the pedo is gutsy enough to grab one he'll probably grab another given the chance.

is a disgruntled parent really going to be diddling the crap (literally) out of their child? probably not. i only hope they had the pedo's picture up during the report so he could be spotted quicker.

pedophilia is NOT sexual preference, don't even waste the time trying to argue that one. seriously, cut the idealistic bull****.

To call someone a paedophile is to say they find children sexually arousing. To commit a paedophillic act is to diddle and abuse a child in some way. Basic grasp of English Language here is necessary, there's no "idealistic bull****" in this just the bull**** you'd be learning if you paid attention in class.

The way the papers report this sort of news encourages a scare culture with vigilante behaviour. That's not good for society. The only way to 100% defend against the potential of a paedophile abducting the child is to put them on a lead and not let them out of your sight, ever. That's not a very efficient way to handle a problem.

Kidnapper? Rapist? Murderer? Somehow those terms seem to attack the character and problem more than simply calling them whatever their sexual preference is. You don't hear the news reporting "*** man robbed a bank" or "Dendrophiliac murders a wealthy business owner."

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to young children.

You do if he robs the bank with a pink gun, dressed in a tutu to the tune of YMCA!

Yes, but then their focus is on the crimes against fashion and music rather than such simplicities as petty armed robbery.

Touche.

since when is preference and attraction the same? if i prefer redheads does it mean i won't find a blonde attractive?

you can't call someone a rapist or murderer until the crime is committed. while kidnapping may involve the above it could also just be an attempt at ransom. i really don't think a pedophile is kidnapping a young child to ransom them back to their parents.

the idea that pedos shouldn't be ostracized from society IS idealistic bull****. the idea that it's a preference (ie a choice) and should be 'respected' IS idealistic bull****. unless the pedo is actively seeking mental help then i firmly believe they SHOULD be ostracized. and if they were seeking professional help there are treatments to curb their sexual desire until they can handle the real adult world. and if they're never able to, then i'm sorry, the real world is not fair.

while the news media does tend to sensationalize their stories for ratings. i really don't think they're sensationalizing anything when they report that a child was abducted by a pedophile.

If a person is aroused by young children (BY DEFINITION therefore a paedophile), however is aware of the implications of acting upon such arousal (be it direct, through coercion of a child, or indirect through downloading child pornography) and thus declines from doing so then they should not be ostracised. It's as simple is that. The second they act on this arousal and begin to cause harm to others then it becomes a problem.

Now, when a person who is aroused by children abducts a child, and does nothing to them in relation to their arousal, using the label paedophile in the media portrayal of the story is scaremongering. It was a straight forward abduction and the labelling is excessive.

Not to mention "kidnapper" would be an apt term to use in the above scenario. However, bringin his or her sexual preference into it doesn't accomplish anything for the report or for the people recieving the report.

1st paragraph - when is the last time you heard of someone being labeled a pedophile without having first acted upon their arousal? like the earlier comment about murders and rapists people are only labeled as such after committing an act.

2nd - see above again. it is not excessive.

But why note something which in and of itself doesn't harm people? Them being a pedophile doesn't cause harm, them being a rapist does though. It'd be like hearing a news report where they go "A man was recently arrested for stabbing a woman to death with a coat hanger. He also really likes salt water taffy." It's an arbitrary detail that doesn't change what the actual crime was.

1. Buy a ****ing dictionary.
2. Read it.
3. Don't return to discussion until both 1 and 2 are completed.

You aren't a murderer until you commit murder. You can still be homicidal. You aren't breaking paedophilia related laws until you abuse a kid but you can still be a paedophile.

the media would not know a person is a pedophile unless they were already caught committing the crime in the past. in which case why should they not be labeled as such in the present?

people are NOT publicly labeled as pedophiles until they commit the crime. how is that complicated? yes their condition exists prior to their actions but who knows about it besides the individual? try looking away from the dictionary long enough to use common sense.

i understand what you're saying but it's irrelevant within the context of the initial issue. it's entirely justified for the media to state that a child was abducted by a pedophile if that happens to be the case.

the ONLY way people find out who a pedophile is, happens AFTER they commit a crime against a child. again, how is that complicated? if the media is reporting that a pedophile abducted a child then it is not the first crime that person has committed. how else would they know they're dealing with a pedophile?

I'm not saying the media can't or shouldn''t call them whatever they want to call them. I'm for freedom of the press, and I'm against censorship 100%. However, why is it used negatively? It isn't really insulting or bad to lust for something.

Again, agreed. However, its an arbitrary detail. "Man robs candy store, he likes jelly bellies."

But why does it matter if the person is a pedophile? I have no problem hanging out with pedophiles, or even having a pedophile for president. What someone thinks about when they touch their parts is their own business and has no effect on the people around them. However, I'd never vote for a kidnapper. See the difference?

the difference is in order for a person to be labeled as a pedophile in the media means that they have been previously convicted of that crime. it's not an arbitrary detail but a reflection of the increased danger posed to the child because they've been kidnapped by someone who has previously been convicted of abusing children.

the media cannot arbitrarily label people at their leisure. think of the ensuing litigation if that were the case... their broadcasting license would be revoked so quickly it wouldn't be funny. to report the increased level of danger an abducted child is in, is NOT an arbitrary detail to most people.

i don't care what turns a person on, but NO ONE calls themselves a pedophile prior to being convicted of the crime. see the difference?

no you're poop disturber on the net :p:

are you actually defending pedophiles? are you one yourself?

most child abductions are by pedophiles are they not?

Apart from that poor Shannon girl when it was her ****ing nutjob mother.

Being a pedophile is not just about wanking over kids, child porn is absolutely criminally horrific how can anyone rape a child?

And often those 'feelings' get too strong and they carry out their fantasies. Sick ****s who should be exterminated.

oh and even though I am 17 I hate talking to men over 21 in case they are thinking about me in a gross way.

Examples?

McCann, Dice, Pooles, and that one boy from Florida?

Also, ABC attacks pedophiles for using their right to free speech on the net.

I am defending pedophilia, yes. I believe someone should be free to think whatever they want to think. The thought in and of itself does no harm. No, I'm not a pedophile by any stretch of the word. I like my women much older.

Sure, but on the other hand I'm sure most pedophiles don't abduct children.

Yes it is.

Strangely enough I don't think actually having possession of child porn should be criminally punishable. I believe in a free market and a right to sell, buy, and own property(/ies) you have ownership of. That is to say if someone rightfully paid for child pornography they should have the right to own, sell, or do whatever they want to do with it as long as they're not harming a non-consenting party.

On the other hand, I agree that the acts that go into making child pornography are very wrong. The child is not old enough to legally consent to acts which may be considered pornographic, and penetrating an underdeveloped child will cause bodilly harm. On the other hand, if the law stated a 9 year old were old enough to consent than I wouldn't look at a 9 year old consenting to pornographic acts as necesarilly bad or wrong.

I think I may have just officially gotten exiled from the MB community.

How the hell can you say it is OK to be in possession of child porn? you are saying it is OK to rape small children?

OK you say the method of making childporn is wrong but it's still ok? You seem like an extremely messed up person who is trying to have such extreme views because you are such a deeply intellectual person, give me a ****ing break.

I already said although i was 17 I find men looking at me deeply disturbing. So your 'logic' in your last statement is BS.

Pedophilia and other sexual crimes are rarely about wanking or sexual enjoyment. It's about power, control, being generally disturbed amongst other things.

Having a picture or a movie of something is different than actually doing it. I mean, by your logic you can't own a movie where someone gets murdered because its the same as murdering someone. See how absurd that is? Also, I never said rape is OK. Rape is never OK because it harms a non-consenting party.

Yes, given the right culture and society it wouldn't be wrong. We don't view 7 year olds as old enough to consent but if there were a culture that viewed 7 year olds as adults and capable of consenting I wouldn't consider it contextually wrong for someone to have consensual sex with a 7 year old.

Thanks for calling me a deeply intellectual person.

Moot point. We're talking about the social and legal points therein, not the psychology behind it.

Oh christ almighty

People in movies are not actually murdered (unless you are a weirdo who watches snuff) did you never realise this? They do this thing called 'acting', it is when one pretends to do things, you know?

I think in Italy the age of consent is 14, and I find that shocking, because I know that I was a twat when I was 14, as are most people, and radically different at even 15, so I think 14 is far too young.

Are you telling me that if it was legal you would have sex with a 7 year old child? you are going to hell.

Oh and I was being SARCASTIC when I said you were deeply intellectual. In case you didn't realise.

the kids in child porn are real kids, they hurt to make the porn, hence why child porn is illigal, the same way rape and snuff films are, at least in the uk, I'm assuming they are in america

and if we lived in such a society people wouldn't give a **** about child porn or if someone is a pedo

but we don't live in such a society, so it's irelivent really

Should it be illegal to look at rotten.com ?
A cultural difference that we should be tolerant of.

No, I prefer older women. However if it were legal and she consented I wouldn't view it as legally wrong.
ROAD TRIP!

If I'm not mistaken in America is it classed as a paedophilia related crime to be in possession of pornography in which an 18+ parades themselves as being beneath the age of consent?

Rach, I think you need to slow down and read what the Unfan is saying more thoroughly. He's not saying he would rape a 7 year old child, he's talking about the differences caused by cultural and social upbringing.

Another example of the difference in maturity caused by society is your reference to 14 being a silly age of consent. Being 14 isn't what makes you a dizzy moron, the fact that society caters to the idea that a 14 year old SHOULD be a dizzy moron is. Only a few hundred years, 14 year olds were responsible for themselves and considered eligible for marriage. Look at Romeo and Juliet; the character of Juliet was a 13 year old. She's portrayed as a determined person who well knows their own mind. Nobody bats an eyelash to the idea that a 13 year old should be getting mixed up in all the sort of crap she gets up to because at the time children were raised in such a way that by the time they were 13 they could handle themselves.

I do however take contention with the suggestion that paying for paedophillic pornography is a victimless crime. Though simple possession is a different matter, to pay for it is passively encouraging the crime by supporting the people who commit them.

No, actually. There's plenty of pr0ns where the chick is playing the role of a high school cheerleader, and a few where they're being banged by the babysitter.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to **** horses, there's still plenty of prons of people doing it...

I REALLY hope you're playing devil's advocate here and that you're not actually this obtuse, this unfeeling, and most of all, this much of a f*cking idiot. You don't believe that it is wrong to own child porn, yet you do not condone the making of child porn. do you not understand the simple concept of supply and demand? Do you think that if there weren't perverts out there who want to jack off to a young girl getting brutally raped (often after being sold into slavery) people would be making those videos? And your reference to watching people get killed in movies is ridiculous and completely off topic. like someone else suggested, none of the actors in those movies actually died. The girls and boys in those child porn videos are being physically and emotionally abused. They are being brutally raped, they have very often been kidnapped from their homes and families and sold like an object for the sole use of gratifying the sick and twisted vision of those pedophiles that you seem to sympathize with so much. You moan about the poor misunderstood pedophilles who have never hurt a child themselves, only watched them get beaten and abused on their tvs or computer screens. It's the same as if they had been standing in the room and egging it on. I think you need to take a hard look at your values and morality. Better yet, go to a country like india, thailand, cambodia, where girls younger than 6 years old are sold as sex slaves and raped day in and day out, often in front of a camera for those videos you dont think are harmful. Why not have a conversation with those kids after the fact, why not visit an orphanage full of girls who are now on a death sentence after contracting HIV in a brothel after being kidnapped off the street and forced into slavery. Have a young daughter? sister? niece? hell younger brother, nefew, son? Think about how you would feel if you knew they had been raped, tortured, abused in front of a video camera, and then some dirty old man was jacking off to the suffering of that child. Oh that's right, if it doesn't affect you personally you can't see anything wrong with it.

by the way, your post made me physically sick to my stomach.