Talk:Perverted Justice
From RationalWiki
My eventual goal of this article is to make it so critical of Perverted Justice that we get on their list of "Pedophile-supporting websites". Just for kicks. --Essayist RA Talk to me _ 13:04, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
- Cheers, I am not a big fan of vigilantism, and there seems to be some pretty strong vibes of entrapment and civil rights violations that regular law enforcement could not get away with. Standing up for the rights of the more potentially abhorrent criminals is the true test of rule of law. tmtoulouse pester 15:28, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
- Aren't "illegal" and "vigilante" redundant? How about just one or the other? Cranial Suppositorypull your head out of your ass 15:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
- They are almost synonymous, but not necessarily, I think. human hilarious link to my talk page goes here 15:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
- Depends what the law is regarding vigilantism...WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- They are almost synonymous, but not necessarily, I think. human hilarious link to my talk page goes here 15:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
- Aren't "illegal" and "vigilante" redundant? How about just one or the other? Cranial Suppositorypull your head out of your ass 15:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Tone
Some concerns have been raised that in attacking PJ's entrapment we might have strayed into rationalizing paedophilia, or rather, doing so enough to have caused offence (since obviously any action can be rationalized, even if the reason given is "because my dog told me to do it, and I never ignore the instructions of the backwards god") WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- First, your edit was actually an improvement to my words, so far as this article is concerned. As far as 'rationalising paedophilia', look: if we want to criticise PJ, we have to deny the belief system that prevents criticism of such actions, which is that any man that contemplates sex with an underage girl is unspeakably evil. That's what I meant when I added that sentence. Fall down
- For Christs's sake, man--can't you worry about starving kids in Africa or landmine victims or something? Why do we need to get involved with the plight of a bunch of middle-aged men at their computer screens with their pants around their ankles chatting with "sxygrl69?" What the fuck? Do we need this? What the hell is wrong with you? Certainly in the giant cesspool that is the internet you can find a site that will be more welcoming to you and your twisted views on women? PFoster 10:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- So we shouldn't talk about some issue solely because there are more important ones? That's absurd, and it's not how debate works in a free society. Suppose it weren't about 'paedophilia'. Suppose it were just about anything else. You wouldn't be saying the same things then, would you? Fall down
- Maybe. Depends on the issue. I just have to wonder about the politics behind trying to interrogate our attitudes toward the topic. You want to to take the hight road and do a Foucauldian analysis of the role of sexuality in creating discourses of power and social control, I'm all ears. But I doubt you've read much Foucault. You've established yourself as a misogynist. You've argued that "sexual frustration" should play a role in deciding the culpability of online predators. You think Wikipedia is too harsh on the topic. Not interested in discussing any of this with you, or in having this community be a forum for your views. PFoster 10:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Well, I guess we know who's won the argument, then. Fall down— Unsigned, by: God hates haters / talk / contribs
- Maybe. Depends on the issue. I just have to wonder about the politics behind trying to interrogate our attitudes toward the topic. You want to to take the hight road and do a Foucauldian analysis of the role of sexuality in creating discourses of power and social control, I'm all ears. But I doubt you've read much Foucault. You've established yourself as a misogynist. You've argued that "sexual frustration" should play a role in deciding the culpability of online predators. You think Wikipedia is too harsh on the topic. Not interested in discussing any of this with you, or in having this community be a forum for your views. PFoster 10:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- So we shouldn't talk about some issue solely because there are more important ones? That's absurd, and it's not how debate works in a free society. Suppose it weren't about 'paedophilia'. Suppose it were just about anything else. You wouldn't be saying the same things then, would you? Fall down
[edit] These guys creep me out
I saw the guy who created PJ on TV once... He spends 12-15 hours a day alone in his hotel room on his laptop pretending to be a horny 15 year-old girl, begging older men to have sex with him. Then when he convinces lonely men with a borderline potention for pedophilia to jump off the fence, he hires ABC to bring in their cameras and arrest the guy. Then he goes back to his hotel room and pretends to be a horny 15 year-old girl again. And he does it with such furvor and passion that it's just... creepy. There's no other word to describe it. And I wish I were exaggerating, but that's pretty much what the news story made him out to be.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong for older men to seduce girls in chatrooms and try to have sex with them, but this guy is a closet pot painting the gray kettle black. Or something. JazzMan 12:44, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- That's fucked up. It's just outright wrong to pose as someone else online and try to seduce someone. I think we should find this guy's profile and have someone be bait, then when they "meet" complete with cameras, you replace your bait with an underage girl and then see who's the high and mighty. ArmondikoV...I'll execrate your paycheck! 13:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- HA HA HA. I can picture it now: two different camera crews and two different police departments trying to figure out who to arrest. "No I swear, I'm the old perv pretending to be a 15 year old, don't believe a word he says!"
- On a more serious note, how is this not entrapment? I realize he's not the police, but police do this kind of thing all the time. I never quite understood how you could be arrested for something you didn't actually do -- it's like buying a bag of powdered sugar from a cop then being arrested for intent to by cocaine. You might have wanted to break the law, and you might be a law-breaking type of person, but the police didn't actually catch you breaking the law. JazzMan 14:27, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- I agree with Jazz. When these admittedly problematic men turn up for their "date", there is no underage person present in order for the alleged crime to occur. It sort of comes down to "we are going to bust you for what you might possibly be tempted into doing if it were really easy..." Creepy. I'd rather see the energy going into something like pedophiles anonymous for therapy, honest relocation efforts, etc. ħuman be in 20:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Precisely what I meant. There's no reason to believe that men caught through this entrapment are 'sexual predators' in the plain sense of the phrase. Fall down
- No, I am not agreeing with you, based on many things you have written here. I am just saying that this style of "prosecution" might be entrapment. You have typed on this wiki a thing about frustrated men being "normally" attracted to 13-15 year old girls. I am sorry, but no matter how "frustrated" I might be (and I was in many phases of my adult life), never, never, ever, would I consider it "OK" to release that passion on an underage girl. Or boy. You're banging the wrong drum here, sorry. ħuman speakers 04:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- And I'm sure you never masturbated, either. Fall down — Unsigned, by: And the devil blue / talk / contribs
- No, I am not agreeing with you, based on many things you have written here. I am just saying that this style of "prosecution" might be entrapment. You have typed on this wiki a thing about frustrated men being "normally" attracted to 13-15 year old girls. I am sorry, but no matter how "frustrated" I might be (and I was in many phases of my adult life), never, never, ever, would I consider it "OK" to release that passion on an underage girl. Or boy. You're banging the wrong drum here, sorry. ħuman speakers 04:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- Precisely what I meant. There's no reason to believe that men caught through this entrapment are 'sexual predators' in the plain sense of the phrase. Fall down
- I agree with Jazz. When these admittedly problematic men turn up for their "date", there is no underage person present in order for the alleged crime to occur. It sort of comes down to "we are going to bust you for what you might possibly be tempted into doing if it were really easy..." Creepy. I'd rather see the energy going into something like pedophiles anonymous for therapy, honest relocation efforts, etc. ħuman be in 20:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- On a more serious note, how is this not entrapment? I realize he's not the police, but police do this kind of thing all the time. I never quite understood how you could be arrested for something you didn't actually do -- it's like buying a bag of powdered sugar from a cop then being arrested for intent to by cocaine. You might have wanted to break the law, and you might be a law-breaking type of person, but the police didn't actually catch you breaking the law. JazzMan 14:27, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- No, masturbation is what most people do in that situation (I presume). Having sex with an underage girl is not the same as masturbation. You seem to be implying that masturbation and having sex with an underage girl are equivalent, as though you see young girls as nothing more than some sort of fleshlight. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 02:04, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- If I believed that, I would apply it to women of any age, of course. But that was not my intention: the comparison I was making was in moral sanctimony. That is, a (heterosexual) man that claim he would NEVER, in any plausible circumstances, consider sex with an underage girl is the same hypocrisy as the man that declaims against masturbation and says that he would never do such an awful thing. Fall down
- Of course I masturbate, you idiot (fall down). Although in my later years I have the luxury of mostly fantasizing about sex with people who I have actually had sex with, even if the fantasy were about someone who has no interest in me, that does not affect them. It is a private affair - unless I were to let my fantasies color my real life interactions with them. Anyway, are you equating masturbation with being attracted to immature persons? Idiot. Disgusting idiot. ħuman be in 02:24, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Now that's the kind of rhetoric I consider irrational. Calling me an 'idiot' is no argument at all. Fall down — Unsigned, by: And the devil blue / talk / contribs
(unindent) There's a big difference between considering it, even fantasising about it, and actually doing it. So long as the only person involved is you, by definition no one can get hurt. But actually going out and meeting an underage person for the purpose of having sex with them is a crime. The problem here is that people are being led into it so we can't be sure they wouldn't do it without that leading and there's no actual crime committed when they're arrested. What they're doing still isn't right. Masturbation, on the other hand, hurts no one and therefore is tolerated. You're drawing a comparison between considering sex and masturbating, we're drawing the comparison between actually going out and having sex with an underage girl and masturbating. Do you see why we think they're so different?
Also, Human is being perfectly rational in calling you an idiot. You are one. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 04:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- I am quite aware that there is a difference. However, the difference is only a matter of degree: if one contemplates doing something then one would, under some conceivable circumstances, do it.
- Also (again), I never said that masturbation is equivalent to sex with an underage person, only that people's reactions to them can be justly compared. Fall down
- You seem to know a lot about the subject - are all your interests oriented towards perversion or only where women & kids are concerned? Fortinbrass 10:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- "if one contemplates doing something then one would, under some conceivable circumstances, do it" - I would counterassert that this assertion is not true. Also, your comparison regarding people's reactions doesn't hold water. Typical modern reaction to mention of masturbation: giggles, smiles, more mentions of same and usually some good-natured jokes. Typical modern reaction to the act of child molestation: shock, horror, and disgust. And, oh, arrest and probable imprisonment. ħuman sub 18:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- You seem to know a lot about the subject - are all your interests oriented towards perversion or only where women & kids are concerned? Fortinbrass 10:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- I meant to compare the (public) reaction that people have toward statutory rape today with the (public) reaction that people had toward masturbation in the past, not today. As for my assertion, while it isn't really testable, it makes more sense than the contrary, and your denial of it can be explained as false more easily than can my affirmation of it. Fall down — Unsigned, by: Just a man / talk / contribs
- Well, that makes no sense, and you also failed to make that comparison before. No, your assertion does not make more sense than the contrary, you idiot. I might flare in anger and contemplate murdering someone I dislike for a few minutes. Does that mean I would ever do it? Of course not. And that's not even a good example, just an extreme one. Why don't you just go away, since you utterly fail to even present your "case" clearly? — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
- That is a good example, actually. There are two reasons it isn't persuasive: first, you mentioned that you might think of such only in anger and abandon it after you calm down. Since a fit of anger is basically a partial leave of one's senses, the things one might contemplate at such a time are not identical to those one might contemplate at normal times. Second, are you sure you would never kill such a person? Even if you knew you wouldn't be punished and in fact the killing would be approved of by society? Are you really sure? Fall down
- Well, that makes no sense, and you also failed to make that comparison before. No, your assertion does not make more sense than the contrary, you idiot. I might flare in anger and contemplate murdering someone I dislike for a few minutes. Does that mean I would ever do it? Of course not. And that's not even a good example, just an extreme one. Why don't you just go away, since you utterly fail to even present your "case" clearly? — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
- I meant to compare the (public) reaction that people have toward statutory rape today with the (public) reaction that people had toward masturbation in the past, not today. As for my assertion, while it isn't really testable, it makes more sense than the contrary, and your denial of it can be explained as false more easily than can my affirmation of it. Fall down — Unsigned, by: Just a man / talk / contribs
- And you have to tell all your neighbors where you live and you have to tell the government where you live once every year and your picture will be on the internet FOREVER along with your home address. You can kill a person with fewer repercussions. JazzMan 20:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- And there you have my biggest problem with the sex offender registry. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberal Schlafly warned you about 21:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- I read a couple of stories a little while back about a bunch of people--men and women--who were arrested after streaking a football game or some such thing; as public nudity/indecent exposure is considered a "sex crime" in whatever godforsaken state it happened in, if guilty they may have to register as sex offenders. Just stupid. PFoster 21:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, that's pretty huge in Denver.... I know one big problem was that the law enacted to strengthen sex offender the sex offender registry had some nasty side effects. There are a bunch of people in town that got ticketed for taking a piss in an alley who were forced to register. Throw in these idiotic laws that allow apartments, businesses, and mortgage loaners to openly discriminate against people no the registry and several of them have had to quit jobs, move out of their homes and all kinds of other shit. People have been complaining about it for years, but no politician wants to take the political risk of appearing soft on sex offenders. SirChuckBNow accepting applications 02:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Yes, it is stupid and unjust. But why do you think it happens? It happens because no one can publicly criticise such laws without being labeled a paedophile apologist or potential rapist, etc. - in other words because of the climate created by people like you. Fall down — Unsigned, by: Just a man / talk / contribs
- Um, yeah, people here seem to be able to. Your misogynist and hateful presentation, however, moves no-one to emphasize with your "cause". Why is it that this is the only issue you find important on our site? Oh, yeah, child molestation and woman-hating. Two issues. Nice work. ħuman be in 01:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Falldown, there are at least four people who have chimed in in opposition to the SOR, so I don't know who this no one is, and B, you're a fucking idiot, do you know that? You're just about as dumb as that Jinx fellow who used to come around here. SirChuckBNow accepting applications 02:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Yes, people have have stated their opposition to it, but politicians can't. That's the point; if everyone had the attitudes you've shown toward sex offender laws, they wouldn't exist.
- Um, yeah, people here seem to be able to. Your misogynist and hateful presentation, however, moves no-one to emphasize with your "cause". Why is it that this is the only issue you find important on our site? Oh, yeah, child molestation and woman-hating. Two issues. Nice work. ħuman be in 01:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- I read a couple of stories a little while back about a bunch of people--men and women--who were arrested after streaking a football game or some such thing; as public nudity/indecent exposure is considered a "sex crime" in whatever godforsaken state it happened in, if guilty they may have to register as sex offenders. Just stupid. PFoster 21:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- And there you have my biggest problem with the sex offender registry. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberal Schlafly warned you about 21:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- And you have to tell all your neighbors where you live and you have to tell the government where you live once every year and your picture will be on the internet FOREVER along with your home address. You can kill a person with fewer repercussions. JazzMan 20:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- And, Human, it's not the only issue I find important. The reason Idon't spend time here discussing other issues is first, that I'm blocked, and second, that I know it wouldn't get anywhere with you because of your left-wing dogmatism. Fall down
(unindent) Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of the early Sex offender laws and even support the original idea of the sex offender registry. There are truly dangerous people out there, and while I like to believe that nobody is past rehabilation, some people don't want to be helped and they will remain predators. The problem I have is the corruption of the laws for political game (Denver is huge on politicians "strengthening" laws for cheap political points) and the opening of what should have been a government list of dangers for public access. I will also take the time to answer for Human, Several users hold Conservative viewpoints Helpjazz stands out as a shinging example. The difference is, they express them intelligently and don't go around spouting sexist drivel in the place of Rational thought. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 03:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Well, it's a slippery slope as you should see. There are rather few of those 'dangerous predators' you speak of, and I don't believe it's worth infringing the freedom of a much larger class in order to deal with it. Lastly I don't consider any of my writing 'drivel' - I ensure that it is all based on intelligent reflection and I never use ad hominem arguments. Fall down
[edit] Warning
We need a template for "Warning: Human discusses his masturbation habits herein. Flee."--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)
