Ugh. I hate to hear stories like this. I suppose the only good thing we can take from this is that the guy was caught, and that, with any luck, he'll be appropriately punished for his crimes.
Sex Predator Uses Xbox Live to Victimize 10-Year-Old
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some people will so some stupid stuff for no reason.
Hope everyone in that jail finds out why he is in there.
Hope everyone in that jail finds out why he is in there.
Wait. Sorry. What was our reason for protecting the youth in this case again? Because, if it's "because he isn't mature enough to know what he's consenting to" then why are we discussing charging him with creation and distribution of child porn? He can't be too immature to take pictures of himself and mature enough to be charged with a felony for it.AxCx said:
No matter what the logical assumption is here, the kid should not be charged. If we assume the kid is not mature enough to decide if he can take pictures of himself naked, then he is not mature enough to be charged as a sex criminal. If he is mature enough to be charged as a sex criminal then he is mature enough to not need the protection of law from taking pictures of himself.
I can run with either assumption here, but for Christ's sake let's not be hypocrites. Either he's mature or he's not. We can call him a brainless kid and then ruin his life for it in the next breath. Sanity here, people, that's all I'm asking for.
homosexuality, zoophilia, and pedophilia are genetic.. and NO, I'm not comparing gays to child molestors, I'm not getting into the "pedo vs molestor" debate, or even defending this guy, but from a purely biological point of view, I'm saying non-reproductive sexualities have existed since the dawn of humanity regardless of race, culture, region, time-period, religion, and level of acceptance.TheMaddestHatter said:
Though to a degree, the mind can make people more prone to perversion, such as catholic preists molesting kids because they're forced to go without sex unnaturally and start to see them as outlets for sexual needs.
besides, if it's a mental illness, it suggests they aren't completely responsible for their actions because they're driven to do it. Like those with turrets who scream obscenities who know what they're doing but can' help it. It's also more common than any real mental illnesses because for every story we hear, there's more that we don't know about.
OF course any sort of rationali discussion about this kind of thing is impossible because people are so knee-jerk and emotionally charged, kind of like discussion of the death penalty and abortion.
Question, though: Should that be done even if they have not performed an illegal act? You're citing who they are as a reason to lock them up as opposed to what they've done, which implies that we should lock up people for their thoughts and/or genetics.Mackheath said:
You weren't the first to throw out the possibility. Not that it matters, I wasn't responding to you in particular, but rather the situation as a whole. The fact that any youth has ever been charged with it is insane. I stand by my reasoning for exactly why.AxCx said:
A.) Evolution has hardwired certain traits to be desirable to some men. Youth is an example of this because of the increased number of offspring that can be created by beginning early. You're persecuting a group of people for what has literally been encoded into their genetic structure. B.) What possible objective criteria can you have for whether someone is beyond being cured? What criteria can you have for them to have even been cured? It isn't possible to reliably measure someone's attraction to a given fetish and even if it were it would still run into C.) how can you want to lock up people when they have not performed an action? You are making thoughts a crime, and not just any thoughts, but thoughts that could literally be outside of that person's control.Mackheath said:
Finally, D.) historically the entire concept that youth needs to be protected from exposure to sexuality is an incredibly recent development. I'll give you an example: 150 years ago, families, particularly in frontier rural areas, used to live in one-room cabins. This was incredibly common. The average rural family would have about 6 or 7 children who would survive infancy, 11-12 counting the ones who did not. How many beds do you think there were inside this one room cabin? Children didn't need the internet, television, or porn magazines to expose them to sexuality. They got a live show every night when their parents came to bed.
The idea that youth cannot handle even the concept of sex much less see it or participate in it is a development of the last one hundred years. That's a lot of evolution to fight and suddenly you want to "cure" that under penalty of permanent incarceration or death? Just because it's considered immoral now doesn't mean future generations won't look back on us later and say "lol, oh wow" at our behaviors, just like we do about medieval witch hunting today.
Understand, I'm not trying to argue that what this guy did is okay. I'm just saying that you really should rethink your hardliner mindset towards such people just because you dislike what they think about.
Fascinating, people get so much more agitated when it comes to child molesters than murderers or serial killers. I wonder why? Maybe they view the victim as completely innocent?
In this case, it was a 10-year old basicaly prostituting himself for virtual money to a pedophile. In my view, both sides are wrong.
In this case, it was a 10-year old basicaly prostituting himself for virtual money to a pedophile. In my view, both sides are wrong.
Well this is embarressing. I quoted mined you, sorry.Om Nom Nom said:
This isn't about consent, this is about attraction. Just like homosexuality isn't a choice, neither is pedophilia.TheMaddestHatter said:
Now you too can pay even more money for an online service like this! Seriously, it's not even surprising, with the ease of access on Xbox Live. Anyone can contact anyone, and you can't block specific people on a web-based chat. With the price rise in Xbox Live, it dims the image of the online community even more.
tomtom94 said:
Yes, yes there is. There is a huge difference.Mackheath said:
Paedophiles are people who (both emotionally und sexually!) admire children.
Child molesters are people who (who would have thought) molest children.
And most of the time, child molesters aren't paedophiles. More than half of all reported delinquents are family members or close friends.
Besides, hating paedophiles because they "could potentially rape a children any time!!" (an often heard argument) is like hating you because you could potentially rape a grown-up woman any time.
And because of your ignorance, I will whack both of you with my clipboard. Brace yourself.
*whack!*...*whack!*
I myself am a guy who has certain secondary traits (for example, I do enjoy lolicon and yes, I've phantasized about children before, but hell, I'd never do horrible things like that to anyone, regardless of age. My primary sexuality is bisexuality anyway) (Thank you very much, internet anonymity!
). Thanks for partly calling me "sick fucking scum", Mackheath./rant
But I agree with tomtom94. This guy really is a "sick fuck".