Topic: Pedophile vigilantéism!

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c started this discussion 1 month (2008-10-15 22:57:05 UTC) ago:

I beg of any one who has the will and capabilities to do something about the pedophiles on this site. Whether it is inticing them on MSN and acting as a child (then reporting them), or any other method.

It is very clear that many pedophiles seem to be attracted here to post "theoretical" scenario's to try to justify their foul urges. In my opinion, they should be investigated by judicial systems, or outcast by the anonymous internet community.
Sure, freedom of speech, but lets say they manage to justify their feelings, or come into contact with other people or sympathisers, then they become a real threat if not already.

Suggestions?
Ideas?
Opinions?

***P.S. NO PEDOPHILES OR SYMPATHISERS. Arguments, fine, but people who outright defend these people, please, I don't think many non-pedophiliphic people are interested***

Anonymous 0b5a3a1d588ba05a19a59b4be806f877 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 22:59:56 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#70,540):

> Sure, freedom of speech, but

No buts.

Anonymous 6ebcb58c422a87ad8c9fc1f55ab41254 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:03:49 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#70,541):

I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be here.
Anontalk is anonymous. That's the whole point. The anonymity means people can say what they will without fear of repercussions.
The things some of these people say may be disgusting, but that's why they come here to say them. I don't like pedophiles either, but I'd rather they spend their time coming up with nasty hypothetical situations here than instant messaging 13 year old girls (or even federal agents pretending to be 13 year old girls), or worse yet, lurking around elementary school playgrounds. I'm glad that anontalk is here for these people, as unpleasant as their sexual fantasies may be.

Anonymous 958b77c95545f1f13e9ace84d4f579f0 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:04:07 UTC) ago, 18 seconds later (#70,543):

"I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
Freedom of Speech is not something you can be hypocritical about, everyone has those rights, pedophile or not.

Anonymous 958b77c95545f1f13e9ace84d4f579f0 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:05:00 UTC) ago, 53 seconds later (#70,545):

P.S I'm not a pedophile either.

Anonymous 16f1508332cb9d4a7fc38029fc14e46e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:05:53 UTC) ago, 53 seconds later (#70,546):

> inticing them on MSN

Guess what? You are the sick fuck.

Anonymous 6ebcb58c422a87ad8c9fc1f55ab41254 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:07:49 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#70,547):

Also, why do you request opinions, ideas, and arguments, but not from pedophiles?
Are you afraid that someone who has a personal reason to disagree with you might prove you wrong?

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:08:39 UTC) ago, 50 seconds later (#70,549):

I agree, my concern is that they can easily come accross people who agree with there fantasies, and although words may not harm such young girls or boys… Would it not present them an opportunity to find circles that do perform mallicious acts against children.

I see there freedom to speak, but to me, I would rather sites like this stay as a vent of opinions and not a way to surupticiously sneak there way into pedophile rings, virtually undetected.

Anonymous 0b5a3a1d588ba05a19a59b4be806f877 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:10:51 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#70,551):

@70,549

> I see there freedom to speak, but to me, I would rather sites like this stay as a vent of opinions and not a way to surupticiously sneak there way into pedophile rings, virtually undetected.

No buts on freedom of association, either.

Please tell me that you are not an American. I will lose the last little respect I have for my country if you are an American.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:12:05 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#70,552):

Where I stated "Sure freedom of speech, *but*", I was implicating actions that can follow. Freedom of speech 100%, just the actions that follow are what concerns me. I am not wrong to have these concerns surely.

Anonymous 0b5a3a1d588ba05a19a59b4be806f877 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:14:56 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#70,554):

@70,552

> Where I stated "Sure freedom of speech, *but*", I was implicating actions that can follow.

Alright, I can agree with that. I am no fan of child molesters. However, since I have no children and am not a child, child molesters pose no danger to me. Your proposals sound like a call for a witch-hunt, though, and that is dangerous to me. I don't want any witch-hunt precedents started up.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:16:22 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#70,556):

@70,541

> I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be here.
> Anontalk is anonymous. That's the whole point. The anonymity means people can say what they will without fear of repercussions.
> The things some of these people say may be disgusting, but that's why they come here to say them. I don't like pedophiles either, but I'd rather they spend their time coming up with nasty hypothetical situations here than instant messaging 13 year old girls (or even federal agents pretending to be 13 year old girls), or worse yet, lurking around elementary school playgrounds. I'm glad that anontalk is here for these people, as unpleasant as their sexual fantasies may be.

Why not be here? I do not mean to sound anti-free speech, I am merely expressing concern that actions shortly follow words.

Hitler never killed a person with his hands, but his words did.

Words are so powerful, and that is great, something I whole heartedly agree with, but I just feel words are a step before impending action.

I dunno…
Maybe I'm expressing myself wrong =/

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:17:37 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#70,557):

@70,546

> > inticing them on MSN
>
> Guess what? You are the sick fuck.

So, the FBI are also, is that what you are saying? =/

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:23:08 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#70,559):

@70,554

> > Where I stated "Sure freedom of speech, *but*", I was implicating actions that can follow.
>
> Alright, I can agree with that. I am no fan of child molesters. However, since I have no children and am not a child, child molesters pose no danger to me. Your proposals sound like a call for a witch-hunt, though, and that is dangerous to me. I don't want any witch-hunt precedents started up.

Well, if you think about it, if ever in situation to simply report a pedophile, they would need conclusive evidence that they had intent to take things beyond words.
Im not saying eradicate everyones freedom of speech, that is just pure oppression, but safety is so much more paramount from my perspective.

Anonymous 16f1508332cb9d4a7fc38029fc14e46e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:23:12 UTC) ago, 4 seconds later (#70,560):

@70,557

> So, the FBI are also, is that what you are saying? =/

Yes, they are indeed sick fucks if they actually pretend to be little girls/teenagers in order to be able to stuff more people into cages (jail).

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:25:08 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#70,561):

Each to there own mate. I think that saying that you are a girl, is not as bad as *saying* that you want to fuck some small girl…
Each to there own…

Anonymous 16f1508332cb9d4a7fc38029fc14e46e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:28:28 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#70,562):

@70,561

> Each to there own mate.

Well, now I know for sure that you are a fucking retard.

Anonymous 87176192da85743ff06d78b1f2d30beb replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:31:18 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#70,564):

OP is nothing but a troll, guys. Move along.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:35:13 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#70,565):

@70,562

> > Each to there own mate.
>
> Well, now I know for sure that you are a fucking retard.

Why are you being such an abusive moron? You come on to a site that promotes debate, and promotes opinion, when you are rude and ascetic to someone you do not know, who has perfectly valid opinions, and has no problem with you having your own? Im not a retard, Im a fairly nice guy I like to think and generally get on with the majority of people, so can you please tell me why you have just started being a troll and insulting me without grounds.

Sure disagree, it is clear you do, but I don't know why, all you have done is made it clear that you can't hold an adult conversation.

If you disagree, fine, be my guest and put your opinion across in a better mannerism, because I will never change my opinion, or understand yours if you present yourself in such an immature way.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:37:12 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#70,566):

@70,564

> OP is nothing but a troll, guys. Move along.

I am not a troll! So far, I feel I have responded properly to people's opinions and have took what has been said on board. I asked for debate and argument, but I did not ask to be shunned by people who clearly do not know how to vocalise.

Anonymous 16f1508332cb9d4a7fc38029fc14e46e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:38:34 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#70,567):

@70,565

The reason I called you a retard is that you don't know the difference between "there" and "their". This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of English, and this, together with your hate towards "them evil pedophiles" makes you look really… ignorant if we are to avoid the word "dumb".

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:44:53 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#70,568):

@70,567

> The reason I called you a retard is that you don't know the difference between "there" and "their". This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of English, and this, together with your hate towards "them evil pedophiles" makes you look really… ignorant if we are to avoid the word "dumb".

I do know the difference, and I don't "hate" pedophiles, I can understand in a way, as some are victims from childhood, and are clearly scarred, but I am not dumb by any means, so please, do not make out that I am, on the basis of a typo.
I FEAR pedophiles, having children, and seeing comments that people write, it is hard for me to see what is stopping them contacting a similarly opinionated person and taking things one step beyond.

Regardless, you do not know me, so please don't act like you have the right to insult what intelligence I may or may not have. I think it is "dumb" to insult someone who is trying to have a debate without making any arguments clear. I have not called you dumb though, for all I know you could be a fission scientist who has had a bad day and feels the need to insult people, either way, to me, using the wrong their/there is not the topic at hand, and can be done by anyone.

Anonymous 16f1508332cb9d4a7fc38029fc14e46e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:45:31 UTC) ago, 38 seconds later (#70,569):

@70,568

> typo

It wasn't a typo.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:48:41 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#70,570):

Yes it was. I did not type as intended. Please, for the love of whatever god(s) there may be, can you actually argue the point at hand. You still use pedantic criticism to undermine a person making a point.

Anonymous 1a3d30f310397d0c865a7581cd8c46c8 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-15 23:54:57 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#70,575):

This is a platform for freedom of speech last time I checked and not setting traps for pedophile.
As anyone with intelligence knows, censorship contradicts itself in the long run.
Sysops does not allow personal information to be exchanged, such as MSN addresses.

Please leave.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 00:05:07 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#70,578):

In your opinion that is. As a parent, censorship is important. I just wish you could see it from my point.

I will leave.
I only hope that some people on this site, can think of better ways to debate and use their "freedom of speech".

I feel disheartened that I have recieved more flames and insults than the sexually perverse who ask others opinions on "their perfect 'Lolli' date".

If you don't agree, can you not even empathise and see WHY I feel it is so important? It is as if the issue is invisible.

So be it.
This is not the site I thought it may be.

(I apologise to anyone who I may have offended, even pedophiles innocent of active crime or pursuit of illegal contraband in relation to child rape).

Anonymous 0b5a3a1d588ba05a19a59b4be806f877 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 00:33:48 UTC) ago, 29 minutes later (#70,592):

@70,578

My earlier posts in this thread have been a little terse. After reading over the latest activity, I agree with you on one point. You have been treated a little unfairly in this thread — although I must admit, your first post seemed like it was a setup for a troll. I'll try to respond to some substantive issues.

> In your opinion that is. As a parent, censorship is important. I just wish you could see it from my point.

You ought to start a thread on whether censorship should ever trump free speech, in any circumstance. If you are clever, you might be able to get a foot in the door with some people (although not me!) by coming up with some "parent" example or whatnot.

> I will leave.

That's really not necessary. When people have anonymity, many will be assholes. You aren't getting much support in this thread because many people (rightly) are repelled by your substantive positions. However, it appears that you've been trying to argue fairly. I'd be happy if you stayed around — if I can convince you somehow that freedom of speech and association should always trump censorship and security, then I'll have learned a powerful set of arguments.

Plus, this place is boring if it's just an echo chamber.

> I only hope that some people on this site, can think of better ways to debate and use their "freedom of speech".

I challenge the pedophiles from time to time, but honestly, I am not as bothered by them as I am by the censors. I wish that both would just go away, but at least at this point, the pedophiles aren't proposing to infringe upon my rights.

> I feel disheartened that I have recieved more flames and insults than the sexually perverse who ask others opinions on "their perfect 'Lolli' date".

You've only had a small sample size. Most of the insults appear to be coming from the same anon, who is apparently an asshole, even if I agree with him.

> If you don't agree, can you not even empathise and see WHY I feel it is so important? It is as if the issue is invisible.

Yes — I can empathize, and I suppose that many here can do so as well. You've got to understand that people who come to a board called 'anontalk' are a self-selected group. In my opinion, most people who participate here are truly disturbed or even disgusted by child pornography. However, many of us have had occasion to think about the alternatives presented by censorship and witch-hunting, and just feel that it's a no-brainer.

> This is not the site I thought it may be.

Not yet. Some of us are trying. I, for one, certainly don't want this site to merely be the pedophile haven of the Internet. I tolerate them, and even read what they have to say with interest, but I enjoy a little active dissension. I hope that you don't give up this soon.

> (I apologise to anyone who I may have offended, even pedophiles innocent of active crime or pursuit of illegal contraband in relation to child rape).

You should understand that your "call-to-arms" crusade against pedophiles through seeking to destroy their anonymity, freedom to speak, and freedom to associate, probably inclined almost everyone here against you from the start.

Anonymous a370be6079a850ab68a19ec43f686bc3 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 01:06:23 UTC) ago, 33 minutes later (#70,599):

@70,568

So, you are asking for people to go on MSN and entice others into committing a crime because of your fear? Logically, your argument makes no sense in the least unless you are arguing for censorship.

How about, if you don't like the opinions of someone else, you cease reading their opinions.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 01:17:39 UTC) ago, 11 minutes later (#70,602):

Thank you, I can see how I may have come accross on the offensive, and in a way, I guess I subconsciously was hostile against them, but it just seems such a shame to have people vocalising such (to me) socially immoral things. I can understand how what I said was contrary to the whole freedom of speech that is going on here, but I just cant get it out the back of my mind how good an idea a site like this is, and how much better i think it could be without such perverse methods of using the right of free speech.

Thank you for the reply.

And you are right, if both censorship and perversion were not so prevelant, this would be such a brilliant site. I guess the removal of one results in the arrival of the other :S.

I am strongly against censorship despite my previous tone, but I poorly expressed myself. Otherwise, I would not be so interested in a site like this ^^.

Anyway. I think I will leave this thread :P.

Anonymous 735ef22093f4198ed4a19039415fcafa replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 01:59:29 UTC) ago, 42 minutes later (#70,620):

"Paedophile rings" are a fiction. Well, they exist, but not as the media portrays them. The few I belong to are highly academic. We don't molest children or exchange child pornography.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 02:00:55 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#70,622):

@70,599

> So, you are asking for people to go on MSN and entice others into committing a crime because of your fear? Logically, your argument makes no sense in the least unless you are arguing for censorship.
>
> How about, if you don't like the opinions of someone else, you cease reading their opinions.

It's not against the law, though frowned upon I guess. I don't know… I suppose ideally the thought of moral self-control is probably what appeals most. there are some things I wouldn't say out of consideration of others. I suppose not all people have that approach though and perhaps I am thinking to idealistically.

My views on censorship though, I just think: what's the point in freedom of speech (or anything) if we don't use it wisely? If a point is to be made, surely positive measurable results should come out of it, when possible… I could insult someone with words, but that would hold no avail, not in my eyes, so I just wouldn't, though I may hold opinions on them.

…I guess I am arguing censorship without realising it, I just argue for what I expect of myself.

All in all I think my opinion is that we should have the opportunity and the right to say what we want (no censorship), but courtesy and morality not to say some things, for instance senseless hate-mongering, and in my <i>opinion</i> lust over children.

The freedom is their, but so is self restraint. An admirable quality IMO.

Anonymous 56a770fa9a4266cc45d1aa5212b7211c (OP) replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 02:03:22 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#70,624):

@70,620

> "Paedophile rings" are a fiction. Well, they exist, but not as the media portrays them. The few I belong to are highly academic. We don't molest children or exchange child pornography.

Well, that is entirely circumstantial, in your experiance, perhaps it is not, but they do exist.
It's like drugs for instance, there is defnitely a trade and business in them, however not everyone deals. I'd see it like that. And out of curiosity, what do you mean by academic?

Anonymous 6ebcb58c422a87ad8c9fc1f55ab41254 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 02:08:56 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#70,625):

I'm not against censorship, I'm against government censorship. It should be the job of individuals. If you don't want to see stupid memes, don't go on chans. If you don't want to see kiddie porn, don't search for it. If you don't want your kids seeing naked people, cancel your cable subscription to the playboy channel and don't take them to R-rated movies. If you don't want your kids exposed to immorality at all, throw your TV away, get rid of your computer, cancel your newspaper, and move somewhere isolated.
If there were no government censorship, there would still be TV stations that don't show pornography, because there would still be people who don't want to see it. There would still be websites that have silly cat macros, and no CP, and no stupid racist jokes, because there would still be people who don't want to see CP or stupid racist jokes. I'm fine with censorship like that, I just disagree with Big Brother doing it for me.

Anonymous 735ef22093f4198ed4a19039415fcafa replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 02:17:17 UTC) ago, 8 minutes later (#70,627):

@70,624

> Well, that is entirely circumstantial, in your experiance, perhaps it is not, but they do exist.

Prove it.

Not only that, prove that they are widespread enough to warrant the moral crimes you are promoting. Very bad people have met over general sex boards, too (see the plans of Jeff Baker and Arthur Gonda, friends from alt.sex.stories). Would you close down those boards? I would not, because punishing many for the crimes of few is an injustice.

Anonymous 735ef22093f4198ed4a19039415fcafa replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 02:22:47 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#70,628):

@70,627

> Would you close down those boards?

I apologize for this unintentional strawman.

Would you have the participants of these boards investigated?

Anonymous 339c3a5a92d092c65ccde2ff69b575a8 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 05:05:23 UTC) ago, 3 hours later (#70,672):

@70,549

> Would it not present them an opportunity to find circles that do perform mallicious acts against children.

Well the US government deprives innocent children of life and limb on a daily basis as a result of imperialist colonial wars but you don't seem too concerned about that. Where's your gutspah? It must not matter because they are foreign children out of sight, off the screen of your daily media dose. Just continue to throw fuel onto the burning effigies of today's bogeymen while the highest crimes go unpunished. Some hapless writer vocalizing a fantasy about dinner dates with LGFs is in no way, shape, or form threatening or infringing on your rights; YOU are more of a hindrance to the writer by calling for censorship of his expressions! If you are so fucking concerned about your Family's well-being, invest in a guard dog and security camera system for your house because the Bad People are EVERYWHERE! Whatever keeps it fresh for the missus!

Anonymous a286f5ee9ea3c3d4a8ab6b943b45273e replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 06:17:54 UTC) ago, 1 hour later (#70,685):

> So, the FBI are also, is that what you are saying? =/

yes…

Anonymous 586a3895ff1154801ccd1e083ee608cc replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 20:00:11 UTC) ago, 14 hours later (#70,903):

In the US, "pedophile" seems to mean anyone who's attracted to anyone under 18. Being under 18 myself and attracted to girls of my own age I refuse to support any "anti-pedo" unless they make it clear that they understand there is a distinction.

Anonymous cc7092d480190e37d633f3c57e1b4a88 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-16 23:00:32 UTC) ago, 3 hours later (#70,961):

Yea! When i was in elementary school i fantasized about luring my fellow elementarians into the woods, tying them up and forcing them to build me a fort where i would keep them as slaves.

Is that wrong? Now i fantasize about girls my own age, older, and younger.

Anonymous 5376ca14d46f5f7979565d8efd15cfa4 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-17 00:46:01 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#70,981):

@70,566

> I asked for debate and argument, but I did not ask to be shunned by people who clearly do not know how to vocalise.

Actually you ask for arguments AGAINST pedophillia only.

Anonymous f7a73f8ebed664269966aac3b61da043 replied with this 1 month (2008-10-17 02:04:06 UTC) ago, 1 hour later (#71,016):

> inticing them on MSN and acting as a child (then reporting them)

Stop. This is vigilantism. It is also illegal and immoral.

Someone mentioned the FBI, and asked if it was wrong if the FBI did this also.

While I disagree with what the FBI is doing (I still think it is entrapment) I have less issues with the FBI doing this than I do with Mr. Randumb Perverta Troll doing it.

Why? Because unlike the sickos from PeeJay, the FBI assigns agents to do this task, one they find to be distasteful but which they do according to legal directives and according to their training. They know exactly where the line is and know not to cross it. When the FBI busts someone the Judge doesn't toss the case out for fears it would be impossible to convict. For the FBI catching child predators is a job they do, a hat they wear and take off.

The masturbators at PeeJay are self-selected sickos who get off on role-playing as a young child and then destroying the stranger on the other end of the chat box for their "money shot" despite any legal authority to do so. Despite any family members who get harmed as collateral damage in their one handed war for decency. Despite how many times they've gotten the wrong person or hurt an innocent victim. No, these perverts are all too busy giving each other virtual blow jobs over a game well played to consider whether they are actually helping anyone by their antics.

Because in the end to the PeeJayers a game is all it is.

So fuck off and take your one armed wank fantasies with you. No one wants you here. I'd wager most people here would have bigger issues with your insane need to game everything here through your binary pedo/no-pedo world view than they have with the various pedos posting their thoughts here.

At least I can avoid the pedo threads. When your type takes control of a site they end up ruining it for everyone…

Anonymous 7d25a9887452a8e380c1a700fe2878ed replied with this 1 month (2008-10-19 23:54:22 UTC) ago, 3 days later (#71,904):

AnonTalk BBS — Discuss anything anonymously without registration.

Topic: Pedophile vigilantéism!