Legal Catfishophile

Wlfwnd91 · 07-31-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/parents...01#addNewCmmnt

If you're in CT then I expect you to read the article before making a post, so I'm not going to waste my time with a summary, and I'll get straight to the point.

I believe the police are taking the only action they can. None. And I completely agree with that. This discussion has come up several times, "Is it wrong if the fetish is expressed only in thought and not in action?" and things of that sort, and I bring it up here, because the situation now sets precedent.

What I'm asking all of you is this.. Do you believe the police should apprehend him for being an open pedophile, even though he (claims to have) never touched a child in any sexual way? If not, do you agree with the police or should they take other action? Possibly putting him on some sort of list, like the sex offender list, even though he's not a sex offender? Do you agree with his right to have and express this fetish as long as he doesn't harm any other human being in the process?

Basically, express your opinions. Many questions could be asked about the topic, just blurt whatever you feel.

I think what he's doing is perfectly fine. There's plenty of people who are turned on to the youthfulness of children, though I don't have a statistic and won't make an attempt at one, cause I don't have a source. We hear about only the perverts who make their move on the children, because those are the ones who are caught (most of the time).

One of the officers quoted, "Has he acted on it? I can't say. But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one [a pedophile] who has not."

This is an incredible stereotype, and people will take it for word because.. well.. he's a cop, right? Here's the thing though, is that ALL he sees are the pedophiles who come in after having acted on it, not the world of those who simply live it in their own mind.

That's my opinion, as more topics are brought up I'll make sure to give my point of view. Discuss.

evilcowgod · 07-31-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

first post

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.

**devonin** · 07-31-2007, 04:29 PM

He's done nothing illegal, shows every sign of continuing to do nothing illegal, and to even put him under survaillance is just a flat out violation of his rights.

From what the article describes, this seems like even less of an objectionable behavior than something like two consenting adults acting out pedophelia fantasies in a chatroom.

About the only thing he could be doing at all wrong is posting pictures of people without their permission. If he stopped posting photos of real girls, or only posted publically available photos, there would be no justification at all to do anything to him.

I completely understand the hesitance of mothers around him, the man does explicitly state that he has sexual attraction towards young girls, but being creepy isn't against the law.

arelik · 07-31-2007, 04:29 PM

All he does is look at children right? Then there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's hurting them with his eyesight. People are freaking out because they expect a pedophile to be some sort of sex maniac who only thinks about abducting and having sex with kids. They don't realize that pedophiles can be normal people like anyone else (without considering their preference for children).
Edit: For people who didn't vote, here is the poll on that page.

Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids?
Yes 95%
No 5%

I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it.

**devonin** · 07-31-2007, 04:33 PM

And given the longstanding tradition of pedarasty in the ancient world, it isn't like this is some new phenomenon.

Wlfwnd91 · 07-31-2007, 04:49 PM

Devonin, I agree completely, however most people don't understand ancient world history, and think that pedophilia is and should remain wrong and condemned. I believe the ACT of pedophilia should be condemned, but as you mentioned, there's no law against being a creep, and I must say I respect the law in holding to the constitution.

I do know that keeping him under surveillance is a violation of rights, however he did bring it upon himself. It's sort of the same way you can't go saying, "I'd so love to shoot up a bank now." and expect to not be under constant watch. But, many parents want him locked up just for admitting it. The other poll also showed, a majority disagree with how the police are handling the situation. And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!"

I do, also, agree with the fact that it's pretty understandable for parents to be creeped out around him. I would be if I were a parent. But, to say he should be shot is stupid.

GuidoHunter · 07-31-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arelik

Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids?
Yes 95%
No 5%

I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it.

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

ShadowBlink · 07-31-2007, 06:03 PM

I would have to say that, legally, he is not committing any wrongs.
However, I also find that he IS inciting other pedophiles to do sexual assaults. He has a website with seemingly harmless child pictures, but he also gives names and places of where to get children. If anything else, he should be forced to stop these actions as they may start an actual real crime. But how can they stop him?

arelik · 07-31-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

Like I said, being a pedophile doesn't mean the person will do something to a child. It's prejudice. In this particular case, the guy would have to be crazy to even attempt doing something to a kid because he's almost constantly being watched.

wickedawesomeful · 07-31-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

This is another gigantic stereotype. Just because he is turned on by the youthfulness of children does NOT mean he is a threat to kids. If he has the self control to not act on his pedophilia, he is no threat to children at all. Lots of people are turned on by extreme youth, it's one of the most common fetishes out there. People have their sexual partners do their hair in pigtails or dress like a schoolgirl because it makes them seem younger; It is, in essence, pedophilia. Don't lump the extreme pedophiles who go out and rape children in with those who have a handle on their fetish.

**devonin** · 07-31-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!"

If they say that thinking about pedophilia makes him a pedophile, aren't they, by their own logic, now murderers?

Wlfwnd91 · 07-31-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

If they say that thinking about pedophilia makes him a pedophile, aren't they, by their own logic, now murderers?

Yes, but, keep in mind, people rarely think about what they're saying. They believe that their views are the right ones, despite how misguided.

I think it's true that he should stop telling other pedophiles great "trolling areas" or things of that nature, because it is provoking the ones that don't have control to commit acts. It's like someone posting a blog saying "This store would be great to rob, because of these reasons." well, even if this person is only saying it because robberies and theft interest him (not because he wishes to do it) it has the possibility of making other people attempt the act.

But, this could go to media as well. Would a movie like "Die Hard", which revolves around terrorism, PROMOTE terrorism? Should we censor that simply for the few that could possibly be tempted to act on the idea? Should we completely outlaw fetish fantasy porn (fake rape or S&M, things of that nature) simply because some twisted **** could decide to take it to the next level?

ShadowBlink · 07-31-2007, 06:34 PM

You all are arguing about morality and who's right and who's wrong.

None of that matters. What truly matters is the safety of the kids. Though the alleged pedophile himself MAY not be a danger, he is inciting others to do crimes themselves. He has a website where he posts seemingly normal pictures of kids, and he gives names and locations of where you could troll for kids. That in itself is a danger to kids. That in itself should get him arrested.

GuidoHunter · 07-31-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedawesomeful

This is another gigantic stereotype. Just because he is turned on by the youthfulness of children does NOT mean he is a threat to kids. If he has the self control to not act on his pedophilia, he is no threat to children at all. Lots of people are turned on by extreme youth, it's one of the most common fetishes out there. People have their sexual partners do their hair in pigtails or dress like a schoolgirl because it makes them seem younger; It is, in essence, pedophilia. Don't lump the extreme pedophiles who go out and rape children in with those who have a handle on their fetish.

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

wickedawesomeful · 07-31-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

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

How exactly is he a threat to the children if all he's doing is looking at them? You'll have to clarify for me, I can't remember someone ever being even slightly injured because someone looked at them.

Wlfwnd91 · 07-31-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowBlink

You all are arguing about morality and who's right and who's wrong.

None of that matters. What truly matters is the safety of the kids. Though the alleged pedophile himself MAY not be a danger, he is inciting others to do crimes themselves. He has a website where he posts seemingly normal pictures of kids, and he gives names and locations of where you could troll for kids. That in itself is a danger to kids. That in itself should get him arrested.

Maybe you should say something other than what you've already said in here once. What you just did is no better than a double post.

If this man truly has never committed a sexual act upon a child then he obviously has control over his desires, and probably knows many others who are in the same boat as him, who he knows, would never harm or rape a child. Though his postings may cause some to go trolling and harm a child, it's likely intended for those like him. Should he keep all his information to himself simply because of a few bad apples?

Quote:

How exactly is he a threat to the children if all he's doing is looking at them? You'll have to clarify for me, I can't remember someone ever being even slightly injured because someone looked at them.

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.

ShadowBlink · 07-31-2007, 06:55 PM

I know what I posted is almost a duplication of my previous post, but still.
My point is still true.
Does it really matter who he intends for the info to be seen by? Don't you think that he would know that it is inevitable that some harmful pedophiles will take a glance and use the info as a tool? Of course he knows that.
It's like leaving a piece of gold out in the open for your friends to get. Someone else is going to get it. ALWAYS.

Wlfwnd91 · 07-31-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowBlink

I know what I posted is almost a duplication of my previous post, but still.
My point is still true.
Does it really matter who he intends for the info to be seen by? Don't you think that he would know that it is inevitable that some harmful pedophiles will take a glance and use the info as a tool? Of course he knows that.
It's like leaving a piece of gold out in the open for your friends to get. Someone else is going to get it. ALWAYS.

So we should censor music, movies, advertisements, and everything else, because someone is going to get to it that will end up using it for a wrong purpose. I see where you're coming from now. However, I heavily disagree. I think censorship of any kind is wrong, but you seem to be a full supporter of it.

**devonin** · 07-31-2007, 07:05 PM

So because he thinks about something you find offensive, he should be held criminally liable, because since he's thinking about it, he -might- one day do it...

Slope, meet Slippery. You two will get along great.

**Kilgamayan** · 07-31-2007, 07:09 PM

here comes the thought police train woo woo!

About the only thing they could possibly get him for is some form of disturbing the peace or public nuisance or whatever, and I don't know the exact wording of those laws.

07-31-2007, 04:29 PM	#3
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Legal Pedophile He's done nothing illegal, shows every sign of continuing to do nothing illegal, and to even put him under survaillance is just a flat out violation of his rights. From what the article describes, this seems like even less of an objectionable behavior than something like two consenting adults acting out pedophelia fantasies in a chatroom. About the only thing he could be doing at all wrong is posting pictures of people without their permission. If he stopped posting photos of real girls, or only posted publically available photos, there would be no justification at all to do anything to him. I completely understand the hesitance of mothers around him, the man does explicitly state that he has sexual attraction towards young girls, but being creepy isn't against the law.

07-31-2007, 04:29 PM	#4
arelik FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 184	Re: Legal Pedophile All he does is look at children right? Then there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's hurting them with his eyesight. People are freaking out because they expect a pedophile to be some sort of sex maniac who only thinks about abducting and having sex with kids. They don't realize that pedophiles can be normal people like anyone else (without considering their preference for children). Edit: For people who didn't vote, here is the poll on that page. Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids? Yes 95% No 5% I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it. Last edited by arelik; 07-31-2007 at 04:33 PM..

07-31-2007, 04:33 PM	#5
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Legal Pedophile And given the longstanding tradition of pedarasty in the ancient world, it isn't like this is some new phenomenon.

07-31-2007, 04:49 PM	#6
Wlfwnd91 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Roselle, IL (NW Suburb) Age: 33 Posts: 499	Re: Legal Pedophile Devonin, I agree completely, however most people don't understand ancient world history, and think that pedophilia is and should remain wrong and condemned. I believe the ACT of pedophilia should be condemned, but as you mentioned, there's no law against being a creep, and I must say I respect the law in holding to the constitution. I do know that keeping him under surveillance is a violation of rights, however he did bring it upon himself. It's sort of the same way you can't go saying, "I'd so love to shoot up a bank now." and expect to not be under constant watch. But, many parents want him locked up just for admitting it. The other poll also showed, a majority disagree with how the police are handling the situation. And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!" I do, also, agree with the fact that it's pretty understandable for parents to be creeped out around him. I would be if I were a parent. But, to say he should be shot is stupid. __________________

07-31-2007, 06:03 PM	#8
ShadowBlink FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Shadows Posts: 64	Re: Legal Pedophile I would have to say that, legally, he is not committing any wrongs. However, I also find that he IS inciting other pedophiles to do sexual assaults. He has a website with seemingly harmless child pictures, but he also gives names and places of where to get children. If anything else, he should be forced to stop these actions as they may start an actual real crime. But how can they stop him? __________________ DIE TAILS, DIE. -ShadowBlink

07-31-2007, 06:34 PM	#13
ShadowBlink FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Shadows Posts: 64	Re: Legal Pedophile You all are arguing about morality and who's right and who's wrong. None of that matters. What truly matters is the safety of the kids. Though the alleged pedophile himself MAY not be a danger, he is inciting others to do crimes themselves. He has a website where he posts seemingly normal pictures of kids, and he gives names and locations of where you could troll for kids. That in itself is a danger to kids. That in itself should get him arrested. __________________ DIE TAILS, DIE. -ShadowBlink

07-31-2007, 06:55 PM	#17
ShadowBlink FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Shadows Posts: 64	Re: Legal Pedophile I know what I posted is almost a duplication of my previous post, but still. My point is still true. Does it really matter who he intends for the info to be seen by? Don't you think that he would know that it is inevitable that some harmful pedophiles will take a glance and use the info as a tool? Of course he knows that. It's like leaving a piece of gold out in the open for your friends to get. Someone else is going to get it. ALWAYS. __________________ DIE TAILS, DIE. -ShadowBlink

07-31-2007, 07:05 PM	#19
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Legal Pedophile So because he thinks about something you find offensive, he should be held criminally liable, because since he's thinking about it, he -might- one day do it... Slope, meet Slippery. You two will get along great.

07-31-2007, 07:09 PM	#20
Kilgamayan Super Scooter Happy Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Location, Location. Age: 39 Posts: 6,583	Re: Legal Pedophile here comes the thought police train woo woo! About the only thing they could possibly get him for is some form of disturbing the peace or public nuisance or whatever, and I don't know the exact wording of those laws. __________________ I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)