08-12-2003 00:56									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: No, it's not, actually. They where planning on meeting an adult who was pretending to be a 14 year old girl. Wrong. The person was planning to meet a 14-year-old girl. If a guy in the Air Force recieves intel that some building had Hussein in it, but it really had Michael Jackson, he would still be planning to bomb Hussein.

Crapy analogy. Pilots don't flirt with the intel. The building doesn't proclaim itself a target, and they do not have personal 1 one 1 conversations, back and forth, with the people in the buidling before deciding if it needs to be 'bombed'.

	08-12-2003 00:57									#122
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So? The fact is, what you are PLANNING to do has nothing to do with what would actually occur and everything to do with what you believe would occur.

	08-12-2003 01:02									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by skywalker So? The fact is, what you are PLANNING to do has nothing to do with what would actually occur and everything to do with what you believe would occur.

And they are lead to believe it by the people pretending to be 14 year olds. ie. entrapment, set up, scam.

The reason pedophilia is bad is because children can often be manipulated and taken advantage of. The people these so-called pedophiles are talking to, however, have the intellect of an adult.

	08-12-2003 01:04									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker If the person TELLS the other person the personal details in a non-personal setting, then they are public! Elijah has been saying this over and over, but you don't seem to get it.

Elijah seems not to be getting that is IS in a personal setting. An IM conversation is a personal setting. If it was in the public domain, then it could be seen as postable, yes. That's fine. But it never was in the public domain untl they posted it.

	08-12-2003 01:08									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: I was merely asking why you think the utilitarian thing to do is to wreck these peoples lives, because they want to have consensual sex with an underage girl. In some cases it may be, but overall, I think it causes a loss of utility.

WTF? An underage girl, or underage boy, etc. etc. We're catching paedophiles here... unless you think that paedophilia is utilitarian... ( which isn't true, since it scars the kids BAD )

	08-12-2003 01:09									#126
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I understand that this is a personal setting. My argument stands. It does without saying that if its in public its public info. My argument is for private conversations. I do not require the consent of the other party unless they have copyright on what they've said, and to my knowledge, there are no such statements on IM systems.

	08-12-2003 01:13									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

No im not. However I don't see and 18 year old trying to sleep with a 14 year old paedophilia. I think the age of consent should be dropped, since I think that the person can make their minds up about whether they're ready for sex or not.

Indeed, if what those people were doing is illegal, get the police involved and arrest them. I'm all for upholding the law. I'm very much against vigilante justice against things that are not illegal. Those people have done nothing illegal, and do not deserve their lives ruined.

	08-12-2003 01:38									#128
	Put an end to popups!

quote: And they are lead to believe it by the people pretending to be 14 year olds. ie. entrapment, set up, scam.

So? The statement "they were planning to do this" is equally true whether or not you led them to that decision.

	08-12-2003 01:43									#129
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I'm very much against vigilante justice against things that are not illegal. Those people have done nothing illegal, and do not deserve their lives ruined.

A) it is not vigilante justice: they are taking a normal social recourse to something they don't like. If I don't like someone, my friends and I would avoid that person. They are the same thing!

B) they "don't deserve to have their lives ruined": so WHAT? There is NO mandate for life to be "fair". It's not, there's nothing that can or should be done about it, sucks for you.

	08-12-2003 02:06									#130
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by skywalker A) it is not vigilante justice: they are taking a normal social recourse to something they don't like. If I don't like someone, my friends and I would avoid that person. They are the same thing!

No they're not. Telling the world to harass somebody is not the same as avoiding someone yourselves. If you avoid someone you don't breach their privacy. You do if you tell the world personal details.

quote: Originally posted by skywalker B) they "don't deserve to have their lives ruined": so WHAT? There is NO mandate for life to be "fair". It's not, there's nothing that can or should be done about it, sucks for you.

Should in your opinion. I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. I've seen huge defamation suits for far far less than that site has done, in this country. Moreover, taking law out of it, releasing personal information and asking people to harass them is wrong, to me.

	08-12-2003 02:07									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker So?

So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia.

	08-12-2003 02:10									#132
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: No they're not. Telling the world to harass somebody is not the same as avoiding someone yourselves. If you avoid someone you don't breach their privacy. You do if you tell the world personal details.

"Telling the world to harrass somebody": so? The world doesn't have to comply, you know. If you have a conversation with a person, you can tell other people what that conversation was.

quote: Should in your opinion. I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. I've seen huge defamation suits for far far less than that site has done, in this country. Moreover, taking law out of it, releasing personal information and asking people to harass them is wrong, to me.

There is no way to make this illegal without making things that are OBVIOUSLY valid exercises of freedom of expression illegal too. And if something is "wrong", to you, SO WHAT? That's subjective and not something we can argue, so shut up and stop spouting nonsense.

	08-12-2003 02:13									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia.

Wrong. They are attracted to what they THINK is a young girl, so it IS paedophilia. If you showed me a hologram of a nude hot guy, and I couldn't tell it was a hologram (I thought it was real), and I was attracted to it, I WOULD STILL BE GAY, even though it wasn't "really" a hot nude guy.

	08-12-2003 02:14									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: No im not. However I don't see and 18 year old trying to sleep with a 14 year old paedophilia. I think the age of consent should be dropped, since I think that the person can make their minds up about whether they're ready for sex or not.

That has nothing to do with it. This activity would STILL be OK if sex with two-year-olds was legal - because it is purely exercise of freedom of speech.

	08-12-2003 02:16									#135
	Got spare money?

"So they are talking (and are being attracted to) a fully developed mind and intellect which is in turn flirting back and ensuring them that everything is fine. That isn't pedophilia."

As has been mentioned repeatedly, the only people on that site are people who tried to set up sex with an underaged minor.

Keep in mind, while it might ruin's someone life, it is only as a result of what they have said. They will contact the person afterwards, but the personcan simply put the person on ignore/ hang up the phone, and it really isn't that many calls that would constitute repeated harrasment. As far as the life ruining- all they are doing is contacting people and letting them know the conversations they had. Why should they have a right to privacy in their attempts to pickup underaged children?

"I think a site set up to ruin people's lives who've done nothing illegal is wrong. "

THe people on it are attempting to do something very harmful and very illegal.

	08-12-2003 02:21									#136
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No it wouldn't be OK. Maybe in your morals, not in mine. Also, certainly in the UK, freedom of speech has it's limits. Personal details is one of those. Incitment to a criminal act is another.

Even if that site has a right to free speech, I still don't think what they are doing is ok. I think what they are doing is wrong because it is ruining peoples lives who've done nothing wrong. Whether they have a right to ruin their lives or not, I think what they are doing is wrong.

I partly disagree with it because of their incitment to harassment, partly because their disclosing private and personal information, but even without those I think persecuting people who have done nothing illegal is wrong.

Basically, releasing personal information would be illegal in this country, as would incitment. IMHO, the rest of it should be classed as private since it was in an instant messenger conversation, and the comments would count as harassment, and thus it should be illegal on those counts. Then on a purely moral level, I think persecuting someone for something that is not illegal is wrong. Whether or not you could make that part illegal, the site is wrong on many other counts too.

	08-12-2003 02:21									#137
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by skywalker [q]Wrong. They are attracted to what they THINK is a young girl, so it IS paedophilia. If you showed me a hologram of a nude hot guy, and I couldn't tell it was a hologram (I thought it was real), and I was attracted to it, I WOULD STILL BE GAY, even though it wasn't "really" a hot nude guy.

A hologram has no mind. You can't converse with it, you can't hurt it, and you can't exploit it. And bringing in homosexuality to a paedophile anaology? You better hope MrFun doesn't see that.

We are talking about an internet chat, the physical bodies of the people participating are irrelevant. But even so, where a 14 year old to have a fully matured intellect you couldn't call it pedophelia in my mind, because it voids the negative reprecusions that such a relation could otherwise have.

	08-12-2003 02:26									#138
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi THe people on it are attempting to do something very harmful and very illegal.

Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

	08-12-2003 02:30									#139
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

They aren't persecuting them for it. They're telling other people what they have done.

	08-12-2003 02:42									#140
	Increase the size of your Attachments

And providing personal details. And asking them to ring up and insult them. And adding very biased commentary, stating at times that they want to do things that have not been mentioned in the chatlog. Suddenly because they're trying to score with an underage girl everything they've said is a lie. At least that's what the comments on many of the chatlogs seem to be saying.

	08-12-2003 02:44									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

It does let them go. The repercussions are PURELY SOCIAL. That is something that can not and should not be regulated.

	08-12-2003 02:46									#142
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: We are talking about an internet chat, the physical bodies of the people participating are irrelevant. But even so, where a 14 year old to have a fully matured intellect you couldn't call it pedophelia in my mind, because it voids the negative reprecusions that such a relation could otherwise have.

SO WHAT? It doesn't MATTER, because all the site has to say is "we had this conversation with this person". If you don't think it is paedophilia, so be it. If other people do, that's their decision.

	08-12-2003 02:47									#143
	Support Apolyton

quote: A hologram has no mind. You can't converse with it, you can't hurt it, and you can't exploit it.

You missed my point. My point is that this has NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with what the person actually thinks.

	08-12-2003 02:55									#144
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You missed my point. My point is that this has NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with what the person actually thinks.

What? But that's my point!

These people where talking to the mind of an adult, not a 14 year old. They where not seeking out children to molest or take advantage of. They where seeking out "children" which apparently had a fully developed mind and intellect.

	08-12-2003 02:58									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Holograms, pedohpiles and Internet users -- OH MY!!

Attachment: 10030848.jpg
This has been downloaded 17 time(s).

	08-12-2003 03:25									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker It does let them go. The repercussions are PURELY SOCIAL. That is something that can not and should not be regulated.

So libel laws are wrong. Their repurcussions are purely social too. Harassment too: malicious phone calls, hate speech, signs in public that profess hate based on race, colour, creed, sexuality, etc. Should this all be legal? I, for one, am glad it isn't. Social repurcissions are, and should be, regulated against. That is partly why we have civil cases, when someone has been insulted by someone else.

	08-12-2003 03:28									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by skywalker SO WHAT? It doesn't MATTER, because all the site has to say is "we had this conversation with this person". If you don't think it is paedophilia, so be it. If other people do, that's their decision.

Yes, that is all the site has to say. However it isn't all the site is saying. As I've repeatedly said, it goes further. When they ask people to harass these people, they go further than merely telling people that they've had that conversation. Also, they state things in the comments that go further than just posting the chatlog.

	08-12-2003 03:35									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker "Telling the world to harrass somebody": so? The world doesn't have to comply, you know. If you have a conversation with a person, you can tell other people what that conversation was.

No, they don't have to, but if someone does, then you have participated in that crime. If you tell someone to do something and they do it, then you have had a hand in that. Otherwise how do you try a commander for telling soldiers to kill people, or a mafia boss for telling his associates to kill someone. There are laws against incitement.

quote: Originally posted by skywalker There is no way to make this illegal without making things that are OBVIOUSLY valid exercises of freedom of expression illegal too. And if something is "wrong", to you, SO WHAT? That's subjective and not something we can argue, so shut up and stop spouting nonsense.

You've spouted all along that they have a "right" to do it. WHo says so. Are we arguing about law of philosophy. If law, then yes, a right to do so means it is legal (though I disagree win this case). If we're talking philosophy or morals, then what I think is right or wrong does matter. All laws are are what society has decided is wrong. You keep spouting the same thing, that they have a right to free speech, well guess what, free speech has limits. And no everyone believes that total free speech is a good thing.

You've used your opinion of what "should" or "shouldn't" be the law, why can you do this, but when someone who disagrees with you says that they think something else "should" or "shouldn't" be the case. Why does it matter what you think is right or wrong? It's your opinion, and your free to argue it, just as mine is my opinion and I'm free to argue it. All this argument is is stating what we think and arguing about it. I stated what I thought was wrong and argued about it. What is your problem with that?