The Unfan

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?

right-track

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;

[MERIT]

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."

The Unfan

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.

chartsengrafs

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

__________________
sunny days should leave a message on my phone.

right-track

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?...

The 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.

Barnard17

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.

The Unfan

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.

Barnard17

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.