Overwritten.net
Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: idolminds on Thursday, March 01, 2007, 10:40:09 PM
-
How many more of these fucking things are they going to do? Ok, we get it...you're catching sickos, awesome. Do you need to televise it every week so my brother watches it and then tells me about the losers? Let the police do their job and you report on something interesting, ok?
Also the host is a smug bastard. He comes out all high and mighty and no matter what any of the guys say to him he can always come back with "Well at least I'm not trying to sleep with a 13 year old". I also think he likes reading the dirty things these guys wrote online.
I hope one day they are filming and some dude brings his gun. That'd be awesome. He'd totally shoot the host before the police could do anything.
-
I agree that they get old after awhile, but people watch them. As long as it gets ratings, they will keep airing them.
-
Thanks Nielsen.
-
They are probably cheap to produce, and they get ratings. So they probably won't go away anytime soon.
-
Imagine this somehow morphs into some weird reality TV show.
-
i think this show is funny as hell
-
oh God.. watch this
-
Show me on the doll where her MySpace is.
Comedy gold.
-
Salem had its witches, and we have our pedophiles. There's always a kind of people for everyone to fear and despise. This is what's hot now, so it's going to draw viewership, and money. What did you expect?
-
Dateline is the worst example of 'journalism' out there. Muckracking at it's finest, but accomplishing nothing.
-
oh God.. watch this
ahahahahahah.
-
I couldn't care less about the show, but I hardly think comparing witches to pedophiles is valid. Pedophilia is sick, and there's plenty of it out there. Two of my friends are victims of rape, and another actually pulled the plug on her own father for seducing children on the internet. Don't even try to tell me these people are victims.
-
No, I don't mean to defend them. I mean that there's a frenzied hysteria about the subject. Witches now practice their craft openly, and while nobody likes them, they're not getting burned at the stake. Pedophiles or even suspected pedophiles would get lynched if we let it happen. It's the unreasoning fear that bothers me, and exploiting it bothers me more. I'm all for stopping real sexual predators before they do any harm.
-
No, I don't mean to defend them. I mean that there's a frenzied hysteria about the subject. Witches now practice their craft openly, and while nobody likes them, they're not getting burned at the stake. Pedophiles or even suspected pedophiles would get lynched if we let it happen. It's the unreasoning fear that bothers me, and exploiting it bothers me more. I'm all for stopping real sexual predators before they do any harm.
Not to mention these men are being entrapped, its not them preying on little girls, they're the ones being preyed on.
-
Not to mention these men are being entrapped, its not them preying on little girls, they're the ones being preyed on.
Actually the people that set up these stings have a first priority (other than catching the pedophiles) of making sure that it's not entrapment. I forget the statistic but only a small percentage are actually able to convince the judge of entrapment. I assumed you post was sarcasm, but figured I'd post this anyways.
-
I think its entrapment if THE COPS offer to meet the guy. Like "Hey, why dont you come over?"
If the guy offers to go meet them, then....they meet Chris Hansen.
-
It's a very thin line. It's not entrapment, but it's pretty close.
-
Not to mention these men are being entrapped, its not them preying on little girls, they're the ones being preyed on.
I agree, but given the subject matter, I'm officially on the fence. It really is a witch hunt. Many will be ensnared, some of whom deserve it.
-
Come on, they aren't being entrapped. If it wasn't these fake dateline people pretending to be underage girls then they would be preying on the real thing. It's not like the dateline people are creating the problem by posing underage.
-
Pretend underage girl: Hi.
*unknown*: Hey baby, how old are you?
Pretend underage girl: 15
*unknown*: Nice.... do you like to be touched?
Pretend underage girl: Yes I do, especially by older men.
*unknown*: Yeaaaa... are you into black guys?
Pretend underage girl: Oh yea, I love black guys.
*unknown*: Nice. What about guys who can sing?
Pretend underage girl: Oh yea...
*unknown*: I want to meet you.
Pretend underage girl: I want to meet you too.
*unknown*: Hey do you like to be pissed upon?
Pretend underage girl:.... R KELLY ?? ?? ?? ??
*unknown*: *logs off*
-
Come on, they aren't being entrapped. If it wasn't these fake dateline people pretending to be underage girls then they would be preying on the real thing. It's not like the dateline people are creating the problem by posing underage.
That's pretty much how I feel about it. The only issue I have is with exploiting this for television, not fucking over the dirtbags.
-
Come on, they aren't being entrapped. If it wasn't these fake dateline people pretending to be underage girls then they would be preying on the real thing. It's not like the dateline people are creating the problem by posing underage.
I dunno, I'd rather the cops actually go out and catch pedos instead of creating them and arresting them. They send a 20 year old woman into a chat room to talk dirty to a bunch of guys, the fact that its actually a trap is what bothers me. Personally, I would never meet an underage girl or anyone I met online. These grown women are seeking out guys, egging them on and telling them to meet.
I parents actually kept tabs on their kids, this wouldn't even be an issue.
-
Sorry. Any fake situation is entrapment. When you bait a hook, you do it in the best way you know how to get a fish swinging on it. You want that fish to think it's going to get the best meal of its life for very little work. You want it to be way too tempting to pass up.
If it isn't real, it didn't happen. I'm all for keeping tabs on guys who fall for these traps, but they commited no crime as far as I am concerned. They showed a predisposition to be criminals, and that justifies surveillance, not conviction. (Yes, I feel the same about prostitution entrapment of potential johns by cops in disguise.)
-
Pretend underage girl: Hi.
*unknown*: Hey baby, how old are you?
Pretend underage girl: 15
*unknown*: Nice.... do you like to be touched?
Pretend underage girl: Yes I do, especially by older men.
*unknown*: Yeaaaa... are you into black guys?
Pretend underage girl: Oh yea, I love black guys.
*unknown*: Nice. What about guys who can sing?
Pretend underage girl: Oh yea...
*unknown*: I want to meet you.
Pretend underage girl: I want to meet you too.
*unknown*: Hey do you like to be pissed upon?
Pretend underage girl:.... R KELLY ?? ?? ?? ??
*unknown*: *logs off*
LOL!!! @ that.
-
Sorry. Any fake situation is entrapment. When you bait a hook, you do it in the best way you know how to get a fish swinging on it. You want that fish to think it's going to get the best meal of its life for very little work. You want it to be way too tempting to pass up.
If it isn't real, it didn't happen. I'm all for keeping tabs on guys who fall for these traps, but they commited no crime as far as I am concerned. They showed a predisposition to be criminals, and that justifies surveillance, not conviction. (Yes, I feel the same about prostitution entrapment of potential johns by cops in disguise.)
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more. If you think something is real and respond accordingly, too bad for you. If somebody offers me some blow, for instance, and I take it, my intentions are in no way altered if the stuff is actually just a pile of powdered sugar. I still showed that I would readily accept it. I'm not even getting into a legality issue with drugs or anything here, I'm just using that because it popped up in my head. Case in point, if somebody pretends to be hurt and dying on the street and you don't stop, you wouldn't have stopped if it was a real person either. Is it mean-spirited to attempt to catch somebody like this? Yes, it is. And in most cases I think it's pretty unnecessary. In general I'm not too cool with that kind of thing. Not so much in the case of child rapists. Nothing anybody could say would convince me they shouldn't be shot in the face if they attempt to knowingly pursue a child. It's one thing if a guy chases after some tail that he believes to be of legal age but turns out not to be... I mean, I've known some seriously young-looking girls that were older than I. It can be tough to tell. But if a guy knowingly chases after a kid for the purposes of sex, he can rot in hell for all I care. The fucker is fair game.
-
So if you shoot a dead body thinking it's alive, you're guilty of murder. That's basically your position, as I understand it.
-
Depends on your line of thinking. Do I think that person would be guilty of murder? No. Attempted murder? Well, yeah. That's what it was. The only reason they were thwarted in their attempt to murder someone was because the person was already dead. That fact in no way negates the veracity of the intention. Do I think you can actually charge them with it? No. That's more or less what we're talking about, and I realize I read over your comment a little too quickly when I responded (was on my way out the door). I think in the case of child rapists thwarted only because the bait was fake or being watched, it shows a clear line of psychological dysfunction. These people are fucked up in the head. But I was reading this thread as more about guilt, not conviction. I don't think that you can really convict a person that didn't do anything, but this has been debated for years and years and years by many, many people. This is why we have charges like *attempted* murder. If you can clearly present that somebody was going to commit a crime, it isn't as bad as actually doing it, but they're going to suffer the consequences of being a threat to society because of their plainly nefarious intentions. I don't think you can convict someone of doing something they haven't done, but I think you can certainly convict them of the intention to do it if you have irrefutable evidence of that intention.
But again, given that I'm friends with several girls who were raped as children and others who have been close to that can of thing, I've seen first hand how it can utterly destroy people. I'm too close to it, so yes, I would probably beat to death with my bare hands any man I ever came across that had so much as even attempted to do anything like that to someone I knew, even if he hadn't actually managed to work his plan out. And obviously, rehabilitation is a whole different story. There's been tons of debate about that, too, whether or not people can actually be rehabilitated out of that kind of behavior, and I don't know what to think about all that. If I felt somebody had done something wrong and then subsequently changed, the story would be different to a degree. I'd certainly never trust them the same way, but I might well find that my urge to beat their face in with a plank had subsided quite a bit.
EDIT - This stuff hits very close to home for me (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/15334741/).
-
Attempted murder. Fair enough. There is clear intention, but the intention could not be carried out. My problem with the traps is that they can be overly attractive lures. They create situations where the mark is convinced there is no downside. It's the downsides which keep most people in line, not some sort of higher moral sense. If you see a bag on a park bench with a million dollars in it, no one there or watching as far as you can tell, you may very well pick it up and walk away. Who wouldn't be extremely tempted? If the whole thing is a trap, it's not at all realistic, and it preys on the frailties of human nature. I'm not saying this is equivalent to ensnaring a potential sexual predator. But the same caveat applies. There is a difference between witnessing criminal intent and motivating criminal intent.
-
This is true. I just find sexual crimes to be much more black and white. Your average person would never even consider this sort of thing, no matter how attractive. At least that's how I feel. If that isn't actually true, God help us one and fucking all.
Anyway, you phrase your point interestingly. It has me thinking.
-
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more. If you think something is real and respond accordingly, too bad for you. If somebody offers me some blow, for instance, and I take it, my intentions are in no way altered if the stuff is actually just a pile of powdered sugar. I still showed that I would readily accept it. I'm not even getting into a legality issue with drugs or anything here, I'm just using that because it popped up in my head. Case in point, if somebody pretends to be hurt and dying on the street and you don't stop, you wouldn't have stopped if it was a real person either. Is it mean-spirited to attempt to catch somebody like this? Yes, it is. And in most cases I think it's pretty unnecessary. In general I'm not too cool with that kind of thing. Not so much in the case of child rapists. Nothing anybody could say would convince me they shouldn't be shot in the face if they attempt to knowingly pursue a child. It's one thing if a guy chases after some tail that he believes to be of legal age but turns out not to be... I mean, I've known some seriously young-looking girls that were older than I. It can be tough to tell. But if a guy knowingly chases after a kid for the purposes of sex, he can rot in hell for all I care. The fucker is fair game.
Yes, if I went out to buy drugs and got sugar I would be guilty of a crime to some extent. I went out to purposefully looking for drugs, your example doesn't go well with the argument because its not entrapment. Entrapment is when police catch someone committing a crime that the person wouldn't have originally committed if the police hadn't set up the trap. These people haven't committed crime until the police put the cheese in front of them and encourage them to take it. Thats why this show only takes place in certain states.
-
Well, you obviously feel they wouldn't take the cheese if not egged on. I think most feel that they'd take the cheese regardless of the circumstances in which it was presented. I certainly do. I see no evidence to suggest that the police making the situation "more attractive" would affect things either way.
-
Attempted murder. Fair enough. There is clear intention, but the intention could not be carried out. My problem with the traps is that they can be overly attractive lures. They create situations where the mark is convinced there is no downside. It's the downsides which keep most people in line, not some sort of higher moral sense. If you see a bag on a park bench with a million dollars in it, no one there or watching as far as you can tell, you may very well pick it up and walk away. Who wouldn't be extremely tempted? If the whole thing is a trap, it's not at all realistic, and it preys on the frailties of human nature. I'm not saying this is equivalent to ensnaring a potential sexual predator. But the same caveat applies. There is a difference between witnessing criminal intent and motivating criminal intent.
I see your point, but molesting children is not a frailty of human nature. And while I agree that the downsides are what keep people in line most of the time, in this case most people fall under the higher moral sense. If we were presented with an "ideal" situation to rape a young girl, we wouldn't, because of a higher moral sense that it is wrong and disgusting. These are people with no moral sense that are merely weighing their chances of getting caught as to whether or not they can do it. As far as I see it, the publicity alone that this show has gotten will thwart would-be child molesters. Until there is a better method to catch these criminals, I stand behind it.
-
Yeah, this is one of those things where you've got it in you or you don't. You couldn't possibly sweeten the deal enough to make me visit a 13 year olds house for sex, real or fake.
Not to stick up for child molesters or anything...just a little devils advocacy here. It is interesting how our life expectancy has fairly recently jumped way up thanks to medicine and better living conditions. This wasn't always the case in human history and it was the norm to die what we would consider quite young...25-30. We, as a species, were having children much earlier than were generally do now. So back then you would be looking at a young teenager with the intent to get them pregnant...because you had to. So I think pedophilia is a leftover from our history that hasn't yet been bred out of the entire population, an instinct that hasn't been completely shut down. Most peoples are ok, but pedophiles brains didn't get the memo. Even then the ones that don't get the memo at least have enough willpower to not act on those thoughts...its the ones lacking that willpower that are dangerous.
Again...not saying that make what they do right. Times indeed have changed, even if our brains haven't totally caught up yet.
-
But it wasn't really "right" even then, I don't think, as it was pretty common for women and especially young girls to be treated nearly no better than cattle, and there are all kinds of examples throughout history where being betrothed to a much older man emotionally ravaged the girls even if their situations weren't particularly brutal or hard from a physical standpoint. And the emotional damage is even worse now, because there isn't even a sense of propriety or resignation to such an ordeal. It's not some kind of long-expected deal or event, it's a sudden and shattering kind of violation done either against their will entirely or in the dark behind weird lies and promises.
-
A mob vandali"s"es (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm) a woman's home after confusing the words "paediatrician" and "paedophile."
I've heard other stories about people getting convicted of utterly trivial offenses (eg high school student moons his former principal, drunk pees by side of road) and who are now "registered sex offenders" for life, with no appeal - they get to tell their neighbors whenever they move; they can't live or work with children; many states will post their names, faces and addresses on the Internet; and lots more fun things, I bet.
-
Well, that kind of shit is a whole different issue. Like that teacher somebody posted about that basically got victimized because some kids got crap into the school computer and, being a technologically-challenged idiot, she had no idea how to deal with it. People totally overreact and freak out about worthless stuff instead of pursuing the people that perpetuate the *real* problem, but this is an ugly and sad facet of humanity that extends to a great many areas, not just the persecution of not-really-sex-offenders.
-
Yeah, this is one of those things where you've got it in you or you don't. You couldn't possibly sweeten the deal enough to make me visit a 13 year olds house for sex, real or fake.
Not to stick up for child molesters or anything...just a little devils advocacy here. It is interesting how our life expectancy has fairly recently jumped way up thanks to medicine and better living conditions. This wasn't always the case in human history and it was the norm to die what we would consider quite young...25-30. We, as a species, were having children much earlier than were generally do now. So back then you would be looking at a young teenager with the intent to get them pregnant...because you had to. So I think pedophilia is a leftover from our history that hasn't yet been bred out of the entire population, an instinct that hasn't been completely shut down. Most peoples are ok, but pedophiles brains didn't get the memo. Even then the ones that don't get the memo at least have enough willpower to not act on those thoughts...its the ones lacking that willpower that are dangerous.
Again...not saying that make what they do right. Times indeed have changed, even if our brains haven't totally caught up yet.
Now you're into a completely different subject. At which age does a girl have the right to consent to sex with any man? A sexually developed young female will attract males, whether the law says it's a crime to act on the attraction or not. What would be viewed as an interesting romance in one part of the world will get someone labeled a pervert, criminal and outcast in ours.
I can't agree that people in general feel more or less attraction for sexually mature teens than they did before. What may change is the morality imposed on the people by changing governments and varying degrees of authoritarianism.
-
I just don't get the temptation. There are plenty of alternatives. Especially since sex has become more and more apart of everyone's lifestyle. So why go after what the law says you can't? That's why I could give a shit if its entrapment, let the idiots suffer the consequences. I happen to agree with the morality imposed by our authoritarianism, don't fuck with kids because if fucks up the rest of their lives.
-
A mob vandali"s"es (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm) a woman's home after confusing the words "paediatrician" and "paedophile."
I've heard other stories about people getting convicted of utterly trivial offenses (eg high school student moons his former principal, drunk pees by side of road) and who are now "registered sex offenders" for life, with no appeal - they get to tell their neighbors whenever they move; they can't live or work with children; many states will post their names, faces and addresses on the Internet; and lots more fun things, I bet.
My brother-in-law's cousin is a convicted sex offender, he had sex with his girlfriend after a football game under the school bleachers.
Anyways, I think people are overreacting. When someone is tried or convicted of murder, the general public always seems to think theres a possibility that the person might be innocent. It could be the wrong person, it could be self defense or an accident, but sex offenders are automatically guilty. When someone gets released after a murder conviction, they don't have to report to anyone or go around to their neighbors and tell them what they did. The fact that some kid has his life ruined by showing his ass (literally) just shows how flawed the system is. People think "sex offender" and automatically think someone is going to break into their house and rape their children. If this isn't a witch hunt, I don't know what is.
-
Heh, good point.
-
That's a whole different issue, though. That kind of shit should still be punished, but obviously not in the same way. But that really isn't what we're talking about here.
-
Actually, it's exactly the sensibility I'm trying to arouse in all of you. The subject matter is mired in unreasoning fear and hysteria. As a result, things such as what nick reported are all too likely to come true. I believe due process is trampled here routinely.
-
Well, I certainly think public sexual acts should be prosecuted, so don't expect to win me over with that one. Anybody who wants to fuck outdoors can pay the penalty for it. I don't need to see that shit, and I sure as hell don't need my niece or nephew seeing it.
Still, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think there are circumstances that obviously warrant a different view. You can't make minor offenses take the same beating as rape. I think we can all agree on that, and I think we can all agree that people do go overboard when something worries them too much. Still, I thought we were just talking about actual predators, given the subject of the thread. I feel pretty differently about the two topics, obviously.
-
Well, I certainly think public sexual acts should be prosecuted, so don't expect to win me over with that one. Anybody who wants to fuck outdoors can pay the penalty for it. I don't need to see that shit, and I sure as hell don't need my niece or nephew seeing it.
What type of punishment and prosecution are we talking about here? I mean, lets not kid ourselves, the justice system has more important things to deal with then the fact that two minors were fucking in a bush and a 12 year old came across them. I'm sure their sensibilities haven't been too damaged after all the damn porn they've been watching since they learned how to fire up IE or Firefox.
-
I keep trying to walk away from this, because it's such a charged subject. But yeah, that's it. Goddamit, it's just SEX! Do we have to make so many criminals out of willing participants?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/TheGreatTetsuo/PBF211-Atlantis.jpg)
-
But can't you see that most people don't view it as "just sex"? Don't expect people to roll over on the issue just because your personal view of sex eschews that level of responsibility. It's a fundamental difference in viewpoint. We think the fact that you can say it's "just sex" is really, really sad, because to us it's apparently a great deal more. Really, that's what it comes down to.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just saying the foundation of each thought process is so completely different there's no point in debating it this way. It's like you're trying to call a fish a donkey. You can say it a billion times, but to us, the fish is still a fish no matter what you call it. Cook it and season it with care and you've got pure, buttery deliciousness. Pay it little mind, and all you get is diseased meat and the overwhelming smell of trout.
-
You were hungry for fish when you wrote that, weren't you?
-
If by fish you mean boobies.
-
I've been reading through this fascinating discussion and I find it hard to decide who is right, if anyone is. I agree with the Que'ster yet I also agree with Cobra. I agree that there are a lot worse things two people can be punished for than consensual sex.
-
I always mean boobies.
-
I've been reading through this fascinating discussion and I find it hard to decide who is right, if anyone is. I agree with the Que'ster yet I also agree with Cobra. I agree that there are a lot worse things two people can be punished for than consensual sex.
Like graffiti. God, I hate that. They should apply the death penalty to that crime.
-
Please understand that in no way do my libertine philosophies involve children. We really can't debate anything if there's confusion about that.
Yes, I think people should have much more open attitudes toward sexuality. At the very least, tolerance is needed. Under no circumstances do I think it's morally correct to deprive anyone of their liberty for consensual sexual acts. If I had the power, I would free such people from injustice by force.
The way things are now, I feel like I've outlived my time. It's like taking a step back into the dark ages, in this respect at least.
-
Please understand that in no way do my libertine philosophies involve children. We really can't debate anything if there's confusion about that.
Yes, I think people should have much more open attitudes toward sexuality. At the very least, tolerance is needed. Under no circumstances do I think it's morally correct to deprive anyone of their liberty for consensual sexual acts. If I had the power, I would free such people from injustice by force.
The way things are now, I feel like I've outlived my time. It's like taking a step back into the dark ages, in this respect at least.
No obviously you aren't condoning that sort of disgusting thing.
I think a question is on the whole consensual sex law. Why 18? Why would a 19 year old be committing a crime by having sex with a 17 year old girl? What changes for her in a year?
-
I guess the line had to be drawn somewhere.
-
No obviously you aren't condoning that sort of disgusting thing.
I think a question is on the whole consensual sex law. Why 18? Why would a 19 year old be committing a crime by having sex with a 17 year old girl? What changes for her in a year?
In most states there can't be a three year difference, so 19 and 17 is ok.
-
I guess the line had to be drawn somewhere.
Yea that's true.
-
As I understand it, there is a 4-year law in Ohio. I also found out that in Ohio, parents can consent to a man being involved with their 15-year-old daughter. This is a specific case that I know of.
-
14 in Canada....unless you're in any position of authority over the person.