Legal Catfishophile

[ShadowBlink]

I'm not a big fan of censorship, either, when it's not that big of a deal.
However, this is a big deal.
For most media, a lot of things can be harmful to someone in someway. However, sometimes they benefit one side more than the other. What I mean by that, is that even though media is double-edged, it can be more good/bad for one side of the audience than the other.
One side is that someone wants to watch the movie for entertainment, whereas the second side is that someone will watch it for baddie ideas. I think that for the most part, the media will entertain the first side more than the second.
So therefore, it's fine. Because it's inevitable that everything will have a "bad" side. But, if it leans to the "good" side more than the "bad" side, that's okay to a certain length. Because even though it can be bad, at least it's not very bad.
But, the alleged pedophile's actions lean far more to the side in which harmful pedophiles reside. That side I will call "bad". Because it leans more to the use of pedophiles, it should be gone. It ill harm too many in the future if what we think is true.

You're right though. All media can be bad. But the very bad one's should not be used.

[Wlfwnd91]

So, you consider it to be "Very" bad. You're using only biased opinion to support your logic. That doesn't really work here in CT.

Many serial killers admitted to having read Serial Killer books and researching the topic before-hand. Should we ban books referring to Serial Killers? Millions of kids cut themselves to scream-o music. Should we ban it because it's a bad influence on teenagers? A lot of murderers listen to suggestive rap. I suppose we should ban that too. Some kids burned down their house one time while trying to reenact what they saw on South Park. BLOCK IT!

All you see are the pedophiles that get caught for acting on their impulses. Well, guess what. There's millions more out there that have perfect control over themselves. This guy has that sort of control, but he's getting media attention? Something's not right here, he MUST be a bad person. There's no such thing as a good pedophile!

That's what I'm getting from your posts.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

He may not be an immediate [i]danger[/b] to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Originally Posted by Thesaurus.com

Main Entry: danger
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: hazard
Synonyms: crisis, double trouble*, dynamite, emergency, endangerment, exigency, exposure, hot potato*, insecurity, instability, jeopardy, menace, peril, pitfall, possibility, precariousness, precipice, probability, risk, risky business*, slipperiness, storm, storm clouds, thin ice*, threat, uncertainty, venture, vulnerability
Antonyms: safety, security

Note that threat and danger are synonyms.

I do have some things I want to say, but I can't word them well at all. If I can figure something out, I'll post it.

[ShadowBlink]

*sigh*
By very bad, I meant that it leads more to the use of pedophile assaults.. I just couldn't find a word to use. How about the "entertainment" side and the "harmful" side? Is that better?

And, what you're doing is just debating everything I'm saying. You're not trying to fina a solution. You just like arguing.

[Kilgamayan]

Well, it's clear he is causing agitation among a good chunk of the populace, intentionally or not. The US does have what essentially amounts to "no trolling" laws in place, I just don't know what extent they go to.

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by ShadowBlink

*sigh*
By very bad, I meant that it leads more to the use of pedophile assaults.. I just couldn't find a word to use. How about the "entertainment" side and the "harmful" side? Is that better?

And, what you're doing is just debating everything I'm saying. You're not trying to fina a solution. You just like arguing.

Well, you had your solution. "Throw him in jail"

I'm figuring out what your logic behind that solution is. I'm also trying to get you to think with your head and not with your heart. It makes CT a more pleasant place.

[ShadowBlink]

Maybe he doesn't have to go to jail.
All I know is that the websites and info he posts shouldn't be posted. HOW the government will do that, I have no idea. What do you think?

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

The same way someone with a gun is a threat to people. It doesn't mean a danger, but someone with a gun is a threat. A lot of people with guns don't harm other people. But, the fact that some do, causes the many that don't, to be a threat. He's not saying he believes all pedophiles are dangerous (I don't think.) As he said, he chose his words correctly.

Although I agree with you on almost everything you've said so far (which is why I haven't posted), I disagree with this statement. Not all people with guns are a threat, it doesn't matter how you word it. A more correct statement is that a person with a gun is a possible threat. To be threating you have to (Oxford definition): have a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner. Simply having a gun does not mean you are hostile or deliberately frightening. This is the same way for a man who's a pedophile.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Note that threat and danger are synonyms.

I do have some things I want to say, but I can't word them well at all. If I can figure something out, I'll post it.

Okay, in SOME conceivable context with SOME loose definitions of the words, those two might be synonyms. You'd be a fool to think that that means the two words are interchangeable. Do you also think that warning labels that say "caution", "warning", or "danger" mean the same thing? Because thinking that could kill you.

From dictionary.com (a much much more reliable source when comparing the meanings of two words:

threat:
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

(emphasis mine)
When he says that he trolls for kids, he's indicating that he's a threat to them.

danger:
1. liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2. an instance or cause of peril; menace.

His record shows, however, that he is not an immediate danger to them. That is, he should not be banned from public places which kids frequent. He has shown that he is a threat, and should have an eye kept on him (though not necessarily in a surveillance sense), but not an immediate danger. The instant he actually goes after a kid, though, he is.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Relambrian

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

From dictionary.com (a much much more reliable source when comparing the meanings of two words

Just as a note there Guido. These are the same website. The actual URL that going to "dictionary.com" links to is "dictionary.reference.com" and "thesaurus.reference.com" universally uses the exact same database to run.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

threat:
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

Key word: probable. He has stated that he has no intention to ever harm a child, never has harmed a child, and there is no evidence that he has harmed a child, therefore I don't think "probable" applies there. "Possible" is better.

But at this point that's just getting into different interpretations of definitions of words, and that never leads to anything productive.

And I still can't find a good way to phrase my thoughts, but I'll try and make do. Try and understand what I'm trying to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. If that makes any sense.

It seems to me like this man recognizes that there is a "problem" (term used loosely) with him that others would not like. Because of that, he let everyone know even though he was under no obligation to do so, with the hope that the people would come to accept he would never intentionally harm a child. While this is noble in theory, it was probably a pretty stupid move.

People make assumptions and believe that a "pedophile" is someone who wants to sexually abuse children. "Ped-" means "child" (as in pediatrician), and "phile" is related to pleasure or compatibility (as in bibliophile, someone who loves books). Thus, "pedophile" does not inherently mean a desire to abuse children, but rather an attribute that makes one attracted to children. It's up to the person to decide how to act based on that attraction.

One thing I don't agree with is his posting of certain information on the Internet, but I can't even convince myself why I shouldn't agree with it. At the same time, I can't convince myself why I should agree with it. All I know is that for some reason unbeknownst to me, I don't think he should be posting the information that he does on the Internet (this is one of the reasons I was averse to posting).

At this point, I've lost my train of thought.

[MarisaKirisame]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

danger
You saw nothing. <_<

hehe

Sorry man, I had to.

Back on topic, I think the police are overreacting wayyyyy too much on this. Maybe they might want to start a point in that he probably shouldn't be so open about being a pedo and such, but the fact that he just has a sexual preference is, well, just that and nothing more.

But really, I get that pedos can ruin lives and such, and I get that it's certainly at least somewhat of a threat, but I wouldn't say it's enough to make a big deal of it.

I see taking away someone's right to be around kids to be pretty harsh, even if the person has a sexual attraction to them. I mean, there are many, MANY people who don't even admit being a pedo, still hang around kids, and never commit any act, just have a sexual desire. Kids are so lively and such, they make most people happy. Should we really just take that right to see kids away from someone just because we're afraid they might have sex with one of 'em even though they have never done so thus far(or at least, no one has proven it to be done thus far)?

I mean, and this is a question for everyone, if you had a sexual attraction to someone which could cause legal problems(if you were to have sex with them), would you really try to get them to have sex with you, even if it could mean quite a long time in jail and a permanent marking on your name that wouldn't look too good?

Probably tough to imagine, but try to.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

He may not be an immediate danger to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Honestly i think it is the same as if a man said, "I love having sex with women", does that mean he is suddenly going to go out and rape someone? Most likely not.

From what i can gather, i think that the police do the honorable thing by doing nothing because anyone who desires virtually anything can be a threat to it if their thoughts get too extreme. Just because i desire money doesnt mean im going to rob a bank. However, this entire discussion/debate is based off of circumstantial evidence and both sides cannot say for sure that he will either remain a law abiding citizen or if he will turn for the worst and act on his thoughts. Just keep in mind though that just because someone says something, it doesnt mean they mean/will do it, it can be taken as any concept you please (a call for help, a heat-of-the-moment statement, etc).

As for the matter of promoting such illegal actions i think its deplorable to say the least. If he actually says anything or provides information to aid in someone committing a crime then i believe he should be punished.

Btw, i didnt read the actual article because for some reason it would not let me go there, i clicked the link and tried copying and pasting it but to no avail... So if you could give me an easier way to get there it would be much appreciated.

[GuidoHunter]

devonin: I'm well aware of that.

It's just that if the meaning of a word is called into question, would you rather listen to the guy who cracks open a dictionary, or a guy who pulls the thesaurus?

That is, it's not like reference.com is or isn't reliable, it's that one form of information is much more useful than another.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tails99]

Does a crime need to be commited for a Restraining Order to be issued?

[wickedawesomeful]

Originally Posted by Tails99

Does a crime need to be commited for a Restraining Order to be issued?

You need legal justification, yes.

Censoring the posting of places where children frequent on his website would be a flat out violation of his first amendment rights.

[Tasselfoot]

Guido... why are you bothering to fight an offtopic battle of semantics.


as the majority have stated... while this dude is a creep, there is nothing wrong with what he's doing. i can guarentee that many many many guys ages 19-25 (if not older) have sexual feelings towards younger girls when walking around Six Flags or another similar amusement park, where there are girls of all kinds of ages walking around in all states of undress.

just because this guy is 45 and is probably trolling for 6-10 year olds and is much more proactive and vocal about his thoughts doesn't mean that he's any more dangerous to underage girls than the 19-25 year old who thinks the 14 year old in the bikini is really hot.

thoughts are thoughts. as long as they stay thoughts and opinions and not actions, there is nothing wrong with it. hell, you can find much worse stuff on the internet than that guy.


ps - omg, tass posting in CT.

[evilcowgod]

lmao catfishophile.

At any rate, he's no threat to children. At all. Maybe one day he'll decide to go out and rape some kid, but he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it. The police are violating is (implied) right to privacy by videotaping every move he makes, thats just stupid.

[Sir_Thomas]

Is this national catfish day?

[Izzi]

This reminds me of a story. Most people have probably heard of those police that will try and arrest pedo's by talking to them online and pretend to be young girls. And when they pretend to meet up they arrest them. I think that is extremely wrong of the police cause its arresting someone for something they didn't do. Kind of like minority report but thats just a movie.

Someone who is a pedophile doesn't mean they are a bad person. A pedophile can be attracted to small children while still really care for them and ever want to hurt them. Just because someone thinks something doesn't mean you should judge them for it.