On the hunt for Internet sex predators

Remove all ads!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10498319/

 

Very good thing. I see no problem with trapping potential child molesters preying on children on the internet.

 

Too right, get the filthy dirty pervert bastards and have their nuts off. Child molestation is one of the things that really makes my blood boil.

 

Where does he have the phone number or home address from? Don't you want to meet in person if you have an online relationship? It surely isn't healthy to have an online relationship with no desire of ever meeting in person. Bad bad wording, but I agree this kind of behaviour can be describe as aggressive if we're talking about genuine paedophiles (not some poor idiot in early twenties coupling up with someone a couple of days or months before the age of consent).

Not only with teens. And it's not like many teens won't play each other in such relationships. "The chance of being played by an adult," it should be.

Molestation of a criminal kind, but where's the part about her saying no or going away or something?

What if those adults are too convincing and actually tempt someone into doing that for a first time? Next, how far are they allowed to go and what about their partners, how they feel when the wife/husband is having cyber pretending to be a teen?

Oh, and in many cases, what are teens doing in certain chatrooms? Should there at all be dating sites for teens below the age of consent? Should there be having sex with anyone even around their age? They are supposed not to have sex... not just simly to have sex within their age group and none older. Don't parents get prosecuted for that? Why?

Next, what about filling false data in profiles? Don't most sites with profiles require you to accept the obligation to provide only truthful information? Shouldn't people be prosecuted for lying about age or such things? The police could be authorised to do that but no vigilantes are.

[ December 18, 2005, 04:30: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

That is truly amazing. Little Snook turns 10 in March and we don't let him chat (or play onlline games that have a chat feature other than preset sayings), however at some point he will and it is truly terrifying.

 

I'm with you Snook. Mine is 7 and interested in all that is computer. We don't let him chat or post in forums but I know that as soon as his friends start getting online he's going to want to join them.

 

If you make the kids aware of how to behave it should not be any problem. Kids get snatched from playgrounds as well but we still let them play. We just tell them not to take sweets from strangers and so on. Just make sure that no personal stuff is handed out by the child and the risks are minimized.

One would think that these predators are slick and smart and pretend to be nice and young and first befriend people and during a longer period of time gains the childs trust. That doesnt seem to be the case though but instead they approach teh child as "Bigdick75" and asks what kind of sex they like and if they want to meet right away. The child old enough to handle a computer who dont view that as a warning lamp has some serious issues.

 

An excerpt:

 

Syv, what is your point in posting that excerpt?

 

Well, I thought this excerpt was pretty interesting - funny whatever - and summed the whole issue. It is amazing to see such reaction from people. If this guy was a priest, we would be listening to "The institution of the Church is totally rotten; the priests are a bunch of sick perverts; pedophilism is alive and kicking in all spheres of the church" etc. But since this guy is a rabbi, we should either be quite about the misdoing, or then we should hide the fact that he is a jew if we mention the event; or be faced with "anti-semitic" charges. This is laughable. Maybe I should be demaning that the New York Times and company stopped doing anti-Christian propaganda every now and then? You know, I am sick and tired of hearing about "pedophile priests".
You two are trying to see beyound what is written. I wonder if this guy was a priest there would be people "doubting" my intentions posting this excerpt.
Yeah, the moderators warned me quite a few times on account of flaming - on threads in which flames flew from all sides - but this has been what, couple months ago? I really don't see how I have been violating the board's rules, much less with this excerpt.
Yes, I am pro-Russian, is that against the rules? As for insinuating the inferiority of different ethnic groups, I don't think I ever did it, unless to say non-Slavs can never be Russians is insuating anything, beyound the statement that they are not Russians.
Yes, I have read the rules, and I know I am not supposed to refute moderator's enforcement of the rules pubicly, but I don't think that is the case here. Considering you ended your post with a question to me, and the overall tone of your post, I suppose I am telling this all to you, not you as a moderator doing his job, but as another poster engaged in a discussion. If I have mistaken your purposes, let me know so I won't reply again other than using PM.
Regardless, I am off for a two weeks trip tomorrow, so there is a chance I won't be able to further defend me, either through this thread or PMing.
So, in short, to answer you question, I believe it has stopped to me quite a while ago.

 

Thank you for the explanation. I must say that your intentions as stated weren't clear at all. A bit of commentary in support of the quote would have made a lot of difference.

Now to answer your question about why the citation of a rabbi is different from a similar citation of a priest. It's simply because a trend of such behavior among priests has been established, along with a trend of the Church hierarchy concealing the acts and allowing the behavior to continue unpunished. You found a single data point in other clergy - show me a trend of the magnitude and duration of that plaguing the Catholic Church, and I'll be right there with you. Until then, however, your argument doesn't hold water and your motivations are unclear.

As it is, I'm going to turn your own question on its head: Should the media stop reporting the occurences of pedophilia among priests because it makes the RCC looks bad?

Enjoy your holidays.

 

Actually, Rally, I question whether identifying clergy of any faiths would turn the story into an attak on a religious organization as opposed to the individual perverts that are being caught. My concern is that the pious majority are tarred with the same brush as these jerks.

The point is that perverts will exist no matter where you look. They need to be aggressively rooted out, exposed, and punished harshly. In the case of an exposed priest or rabbi or whatever, the church should also get their shots in. They have the right to excommunicate the offender. They wash their hands of the offender. They cannot protect the guilty...

 

Actually, I think any person of the cloth, be they a priest, rabbi, mullah, whatever, would be equally smeared if caught doing something like that. Obviously, actions like this are never condoned regardless of the profession of the person performing them. However rightly or wrongly, society holds religious leaders to a higher standard than everyone else, which is why they get treated more harshly than others.

 

Note that an ideal person who is totally free of any prejudice would point out a perverted rabbi as easily as a perverted priest because there would be no issue. We can question the intentions of a person who brings up such examples, but we shouldn't get off the track and run into minority attack discussions instead of dealing with the topic. The point is, a man of the frock (sort of -- rabbis aren't priests and aren't really clergy per se, they are teachers and leaders) was caught on a paedophiliac errand.

Svyatoslav, I think you could provide links and quotes with some introduction and perhaps a little explanation. I don't mean miles of disclaimers but when people see nude excerpts from the text or a simple one-liner of a link, they start to wonder and various ideas pop up. Suspecting provocation is one of those. Perhaps putting a little more effort in the opening posts would show people you want to discuss and not just stir up trouble, which some might think is the case. If you don't say anything, people start wondering what you wanted to say by saying nothing.

Well, anyway, the excerpt doesn't say anything about rabbis in general, it just shows rotten apples happen in all kinds of jobs and positions, including spiritual leaders and teachers.

[ December 22, 2005, 20:20: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

As it should be, but don't hit the pious when the **** hits that fan.

Actually, they are treated more harshly because in addition to being perverts, they are also hypocrites, preaching morality while indulging in abominations out of the public eye.