Legal Catfishophile

[lord_carbo]

That's pretty ****ing unfair. There's like, a person under 18 every 20 feet of you in a mall, or a line when you're grocery shopping. And he didn't do a damned thing. Now he can't shop for groceries or go to the mall :/

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

I can't quite comprehend how anybody could believe he's not a threat to children. He's done nothing illegal, he cannot be legally arrested or fined, but that does not mean that what he does is right. I don't mean to get into another argument here, but it's like handing marijuana, paper, and a lighter to somebody and walking away while saying, "Don't do anything bad now."

Perhaps the analogy blows things out of proportion a bit, but it gets the point across. Providing pictures of children to the public, even if they are not child porn, does indeed encourage pedophiles, and could mean a possible increase in sexual acts committed by other pedophiles.

But as Toph said, even though we made different points, the debate is moot. Nothing can be done unless the man acts on his thoughts, so whether or not what he is doing is right does not matter.

I love how you seem to believe that I wanted to get into a fight about definitions, but you seem to have missed this part of my post:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

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

I stated there that arguing about definitions does not lead to productive debate, so why are you bringing it up while saying I wanted to do so?

Also, you said that he may not have done anything illegal, but that doesn't mean what he's doing is right. That's completely correct. What he's doing isn't right, but it isn't wrong. It's neutral; nothing inherently good or bad comes from just looking at children.

You also seemed to miss this other part of my post:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

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).

I'll let you reread it so you can understand my position.

As for your analogy, think about this. Assume you're the person in the scenario? What would you do with the materials given to you? Throw them away or turn them into the police, I'd expect. If not...well, let's not get into that.

I think a better analogy in your case would be a cigarette and lighter given to a smoker determined to quit. This is similar to the pedophile case because in both instances, someone attracted to thing x is given the tools to act on his attraction, but is determined not to. And even in that case, I would -hope- the smoker either refuses the items or throws them out. Now, I don't know just how hard it is to quit smoking, so perhaps it's a heck of a lot harder to refuse such things than I'm thinking, but I doubt pedophilia creates an addiction anywhere near as strong.

Once again, if the police and the people simply respect McClellan, and ask him to stop what he's doing (posting pictures on the Internet) on the grounds that he is assisting others in committing crime, I hope he would agree. If not, I think too highly of him as a person.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by devonin

Okay, so every single instance of pictures of children everywhere on earth encourages pedophiles and is wrong... do I really have to point out the folly of this statement?

He had been posting nonsexual pictures of children on a Web site intended to promote the acceptance of pedophiles, and to direct other pedophiles to events and places where children tended to gather.

Okay, he doesn't encourage pedophiles, he just tries to accept them and aim them at the children.


To Relambrian: I missed that part of your post. I apologize. Also, thank you for improving my analogy. I only spent a couple minutes on my post, since I was in a hurry.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

To Relambrian: I missed that part of your post. I apologize. Also, thank you for improving my analogy. I only spent a couple minutes on my post, since I was in a hurry.

Not a problem; that happens to everyone. And you're welcome with the analogy thing; I tend to be very good at creating them.

For future reference, it's "Relambrien" though, not "Relambrian"

[devonin]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

Okay, he doesn't encourage pedophiles, he just tries to accept them and aim them at the children.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. I can't read your mind, so I don't know when you are saying something in the context of something else unless you point it out. You said:

Providing pictures of children to the public, even if they are not child porn, does indeed encourage pedophiles, and could mean a possible increase in sexual acts committed by other pedophiles.

It was an absolute statement, without an addition that it was only within the context of him posting on his site to his particular audience.

[jewpinthethird]

Unfortunately, the executive branch of the United States is pretty much counter-effective when it comes to enforcing the law. For those of you who are retarded when if comes to the United States government, our government is divided into three branches, the Legislative branch, which makes laws that only get vetoed by the President, the Judicial branch, probably the only Branch of government that does any real work, and the executive branch, which enforces the law by breaking it. The executive branch includes: the President, people the President talks to, the military, and police. The executive branch is only good for two things: dropping bombs, and shooting black/brown people. When the executive branch isn't dropping bombs or shooting blackie/brownie it's: breaking the law, getting its dick sucked, or choking on a pretzel. In this case, it's merely breaking the law. When the executive branch is done f*cking things up, the Judicial branch steps and decides whether or not the executive branch should have done what it did.

If yes:
Prosecutor
Defendant:

If no:
Prosecutor
Defendant:

It's only a matter of time before this case is appealed.

You can trust me on this, I watch a lot of Law and Order (but not CI...only dunces like CI because it has that guy from Men in Black)

[TheMagiKMan]

It seems that some people throughout this argument have been throwing around assumptions such as "posted pictures of children increase sexual acts on children" and what not, but quite honestly, no one really knows if those pictures will created an increased risk or not. The police are wrong in restricting his rights, and more than likely it will be overturned, but understand as a parent the most important thing in your life is your child, hopefully, and any sort of possible harm or threat will some see sort of retaliation or preventive measure against it. However that is not to say the parents are correct in what they are doing, the term "overkill" comes to mind, because honestly he has done nothing wrong. Now, if this man had already been run out of one state, and is now going down a similar road in another, that man really can only blame himself. He knew what the parents reactions were going to be, he saw it himself in Washington state, so why did he remain so public about his view, why did not "keep it on the down low". I know, it would be wonderful if the whole world could just get along and accept everybody for who they, but sadly this is not reality we live in. Now, will his site really help other violent pedophiles rape children, probably no more than Google Maps will, because it really doesn't take a genius to figure out where children play or gather. Perhaps we should just wait and find out if such sites and pictures will encourage sexual acts, with no other information to go off of, there is really not much else anyone can do. Now if the police repeal the restraining order, and wait, and nothing happens, then it is all good, people with sites similar to his get to keep on being creepy and doing their thing, now if children start getting raped one after another, then a legal precedent can be set, and future action can be taken the foreknowledge they now have. It sounds cruel I know, but honestly without infringing on his rights there is nothing else they can do, this would really just be a great time to gather data on people similar to him, and be able to find links between pedophilia and violence, and differences between those who act on it and those who do not.

[atalkingcow]

The police should be working with him, not trying to arrest him.

As for his website: Think about this.

He's given the creepy icky molesty type of pedo's a hunting ground for children. This seems like a bad thing, but it also means that he's given the police a hunting ground for molesters.

If this guy knows all the tricks, and is this open about that fact, then they should be asking him for help cracking down.

But of course, people tend to use their heart more than their brains.

~cow~

[devonin]

But would he help the police catch people engaging in an activity that he doesn't think is wrong, even though the law says it is?

[TheMagiKMan]

No probably not, you simply look for behavioral patterns in similar people, different sites these people gather at, how many of them actually are dangerous, ect. Fully within his rights he can be used to help the police indirectly, simply by using what they know, and I am sure he would love to clear up the differences between dangerous pedophiles and non-dangerous ones, as it would help to erase the bad stigma from his name, as well from people similar to himself.

[devonin]

The question becomes, "Just because he claims to be a "non-dangerous" pedophile is he actually against the "dangerous" aspects of pedophelia, or does he personally just not consider the risk of being caught worth it?"

If he finds the idea of -actually- doing the things to kids that he wants to do to kids in any way offensive or disgusting, then yes he'd be a valuable tool in the same way that many people in the porn industry are instrumental in finding and taking down child porn rings. If, however he has no problem at all with the fact that plenty of people don't resist the urge to enact their desires on children, he'd be completely useless to the police unless (as they have) they start violating his rights to get information.

[TheMagiKMan]

Then I guess we will just have to see what road they go down, as until we really know what he has to say, all we can do is speculate and guess, and what if.

[atalkingcow]

Personally, I respect him for having the cojones to come out and admit his fetish.

I think that he's perfectly harmless, and should be left alone for the most part.

Think about it, why would he let everyone know he like kids if he intended to do something to them? It would be just plain stupid.

Anyway...I'm leaving this topic, because this isnt the place for one as accepting as myself.f

[AquaTeen]

Originally Posted by evilcowgod

Well, I think it should be OK to be a pedophile, just as long as (assuming he has any) the child porn is NOT real, for example, lolita or straight shota or some variation of that.

Just as long as he stays the hell away from children, I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's never a good thing to be a pedophile. It's a mark of shame because you did something sexual to a child.

[devonin]

Please actually read through the thread before deciding to just respond to one post you happen to feel like responding to.

The entire point of this man's claims is that he has NEVER done anything sexaul to a child, so your point doesn't even have relevence to the OP, and moreover, you've decided that it is shameful to have a certain sexual predeliction...do you feel the same way about fetishes that don't involve minors? Or is it solely the act of finding children attractive that you find shameful?

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by AquaTeen

It's never a good thing to be a pedophile. It's a mark of shame because you did something sexual to a child.

The thread was about a guy who never did anything sexual to a child. A guy just like you, but with sexy thoughts about children.

Think of all the thoughts you've ever had in your life. Surely you've thought of something illegal or immoral. Surely your beliefs run counter to the law in some area. Maybe even counter to public moral opinion. If you never acted on these beliefs, should you be locked up?

[Afrobean]

I know this is an old topic, but I just think it's damned funny that some people actually think thoughtpolice is a good idea.

[nois-or-e]

17-month bump and Devonin is still on the ready for discussion/shuttingpeopledown.