STATIC-X Guitarist Busted On Sex Assault, Kidnapping Charges - Feb. 26, 2005

Firstly to Sadako:

1) By definition, he is. Never doubted it. You are labelling him as some rampant serial paedophile though.

2) I could say the same to you. You don't know any more than I do. So thanks for proving my point there 🙂.

3) Yes I'm well aware of the article. Not quite sure what you meant by all that but whatever bubbles your bath.

4) Assumption City. If I had a daughter she wouldn't even be in that situation. That's a judgement call that I am making about myself. So don't try to debate this. If you feel you would be a bad enough parent to let that thing slip under your Bat-Parent radar, so be it. I wouldn't.

5) Now we're getting somewhere. Chances are, many of us are paedophiles by definition, fault or not. I have NO reason to believe, and neither do any of you, that he is a serial paedophile. Correct?

Now....deet de deeee...oh Sadako again.

Show me the test results please.

Daron: I completely agree. Here's why...

"How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident."

I don't, neither do you. Why assume any different? Just because sex is implied? What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

I never implied the articles are wrong. I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?

There may be more to this than meets the eye, hence why I am debating.

*Does the Alpha Mambo*

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Firstly to Sadako:

1) By definition, he is. Never doubted it. You are labelling him as some rampant serial paedophile though.

2) I could say the same to you. You don't know any more than I do. So thanks for proving my point there 🙂.

3) Yes I'm well aware of the article. Not quite sure what you meant by all that but whatever bubbles your bath.

4) Assumption City. If I had a daughter she wouldn't even be in that situation. That's a judgement call that I am making about myself. So don't try to debate this. If you feel you would be a bad enough parent to let that thing slip under your Bat-Parent radar, so be it. I wouldn't.

5) Now we're getting somewhere. Chances are, many of us are paedophiles by definition, fault or not. I have NO reason to believe, and neither do any of you, that he is a serial paedophile. Correct?

Now....deet de deeee...oh Sadako again.

Show me the test results please.

Daron: I completely agree. Here's why...

"How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident."

I don't, neither do you. Why assume any different? Just because sex is implied? What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

I never implied the articles are wrong. I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?

There may be more to this than meets the eye, hence why I am debating.

*Does the Alpha Mambo*

-AC

1) Show me a quote from my posts where I call him "A rampant serial Paedophile"

2) Absolutely. I agree 100%. I've never seen this as a whos-right-whos-wrong-competion.. I merely stated my opinion as have you.
We all have our own. This of course is the main asset of debate.

3)Radox bubbles my bath (Occasionally) But dude if if you see my point on that as unreasonable or wrong, then each to there own,but man! You wont ever be allowed near MY daughter.....! 🙂 Seriously though..
I would find someone with such a defense of Paedos (Citing various arguments as 'Well the kid concented' and 'Well, its legal in some countries' as a little disconcerting....

4) Glad to hear it. And neither would I of course in principle.But Im not debating the parents role in that point I made really, and was trying to accertain whether or not there was any way that compassion for the kid in question would override your "blame" judgement, and giving that you still haven't replied to that aspect of the post, then to use a particularly ironic phrase given the debate topic, "The jurys still out on that one..."
Besides which Will you be the first ever parent then (in this hypothesis)
to ever not make a mistake...? Or the first one never ever to have been
neglegent...?

5) Dummm-de-dummm de dummmmmmm....
Read Point no 1 of this post again..... 😕

1) I never said you called him those exact words. I said you are labelling him as one, making him out to be one. Don't try and out smartass a smartass 😉.

2) Good, goooood.

4) Firstly I don't plan on having kids. Secondly, I'm sure as a parent I would make mistakes because it's inevitable. Would letting my 14 year old daughter go running out of the house to meet a random 34 year old stranger be one of them? Hahahahaha no, it wouldn't and yes I would know if she was up to anything because I happen to have a knowledge of computers so I would be more than able to see what she's up to on there.

4A) To cover your OTHER point about compassion, you missed MY point. It would still be my daughter's bad choice if she thought it was OK to go and meet a man like that. The key factor is that she wouldn't get the chance to see it through, thus? My daughter would not be subject to his robopleging. Killing a bird with an abortion, no need for the stone. Metaphorically speaking.

5) Note where I said "any of you" and not "Sadako of Birth, this is aimed at you."

Bada ba badaaaa, I'm lovin' it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Daron: I completely agree. Here's why...

"How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident."

I don't, neither do you. Why assume any different? Just because sex is implied? What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

I never implied the articles are wrong. I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?

There may be more to this than meets the eye, hence why I am debating.
-AC

But I didn't say they showed actual paedopilia I said that they show that it would seem he is, not that they show he definately is a paedophile.

I'm saying that people are calling him a paedophile, because based on what the news reports say, it would seem that he has had sex with more than one underage girl, therefore he probably is a paedophile, not definately, probably.

Yes most opinions are based on assumptions, so they may well be wrong, but the guy had sex with one underage girl and was found sleeping in a car with another underage girl, naturally people are going to arrive at the conclusion that he is a paedophile, they may be wrong but based on what has been reported its the most obvious conclusion.

Like I said I'm not saying he is a paedophile, just that I understand why people think he is. I also understand what you are saying that he is innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever, you're trying to put words in my mouth (I never said he was a paedophile), I'm simply saying that I see why people think he is a paedophile, not that he is.

"But I didn't say they showed actual paedopilia I said that they show that it would seem he is, not that they show he definately is a paedophile."

I never said you did.

Everyone needs to stop assuming that I'm being specific. I try to speak in general so as to cover more points.

"I'm saying that people are calling him a paedophile, because based on what the news reports say, it would seem that he has had sex with more than one underage girl, therefore he probably is a paedophile, not definately, probably."

Yes, where was I saying any different? Again, making the assumption that I'm specifically aiming it at you.

As for the waking in the car, people can arrive at whatever conclusion they like as long as they realise that they are doing so. Someone arriving at a conclusion, however obvious, doesn't make it fact until proven so.

Last point: I see why people are saying it too and if you look, I've agreed he's a paedophile by definition, but so are many people. Big difference to having a dossier on kids.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"But she is 14 years old, and for that reason she doesnt think like you do. If YOU were meeting someone YOU would tell your parents. Shes 14 and she doesnt think like that - if she did, she would see the stupidity of her actions and thus she wouldnt have done what she has."

So her actions were stupid yet they are in no way relevant to this case? It's in no way, her fault? Despite her actions being stupid? Funny that.

Your rape comment is completely irrational. Nothing I am saying is as drastic as saying a woman deserves rape for wearing a mini skirt. Once again you blow everything out of proportion WHILE missing my point entirely. Way to go Milla, seems to be quite a habit.

I'm not saying she deserves what she got, nor am I defending him. Get that right.

As for calling him a paedophile, give me a goddamn break. The guy did something wrong and I'm by no means defending him. However, he doesn't pray on underaged kids all the time does he? He doesn't make it his habit, it's not his aim. I'm sure if she were legal he'd have done the exact same thing. The thing that makes me crack up is that due to this ONE case, you and Sadako brand the man a serial paedophile. Who do you think you are?

Don't throw around the label of paedophile, once attached it can't easily be removed. Michael Jackson's reputation is absolutely obliterated now because of people like you branding him something that he probably isn't, before taking into consideration that you might be wrong.

"HE could've averted this by not arranging a meeting. HE could've not shown up."

She could have done both of the same things. Oh but wait, she's 14, she's a "child". She's got the get out of jail free card.

Pfft.

-AC

There it is -in the paragraph that starts with "As for falling him a paedophile".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
1) I never said you called him those exact words. I said you are labelling him as one, making him out to be one. Don't try and out smartass a smartass 😉.

2) Good, goooood.

4) Firstly I don't plan on having kids. Secondly, I'm sure as a parent I would make mistakes because it's inevitable. Would letting my 14 year old daughter go running out of the house to meet a random 34 year old stranger be one of them? Hahahahaha no, it wouldn't and yes I would know if she was up to anything because I happen to have a knowledge of computers so I would be more than able to see what she's up to on there

-AC

1) Already have. 😉

4) good for you. But then maybe the parents in question weren't so clued up... A lot parents of her parent's age probably aren't as a rule...

Because that's how he's commonly known in this thread is it not?

Did I refer to him before as a paedophile by definition?

Did I deny he was a paedophile or guilty of paedophilia.

Answers to each:

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Thanks.

"1) Already have. "

Haven't really. I can be such a party crasher.

Let's not get irrelevant as a result of my impeccable skill shall we? 😉.

I agree on your 4th point by the way. Parents aren't clued up. Just helps me.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because that's how he's commonly known in this thread is it not?

Did I refer to him before as a paedophile by definition?

Did I deny he was a paedophile or guilty of paedophilia.

Answers to each:

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Thanks.

"1) Already have. "

Haven't really. I can be such a party crasher.

Let's not get irrelevant as a result of my impeccable skill shall we? 😉.

I agree on your 4th point by the way. Parents aren't clued up. Just helps me.

-AC

Goddamit.

You used the old pantomime thing.

Bastard.

-AC

'Just going to meet a man off the internet, be back soon.'

What for?

'Talk and that. Then come home.'

Ok, byeee.

Wait until you are a parent, then you'll eat your words.

You'll be the first parent in the world who can completely control their teenage child, in order to know where they are at any given moment, which you would need to in order to know that they aren't sat in a car with 39 year old man, without using violence to control the teenager in question and those kind of people generally get locked up.

Therefore you can't possibly know that your child would never end up in that situation.

I know people who've brought up numerous children the exact same way, and they can turn out totally different, its something you really don't have much control over.

Many parents try their absolute best to bring up their child the best way possible, but the truth is, that you really don't have that much control over what kind of person your child will turn out to be.

I should know I have a sixteen year old son, who by the way has given me almost no trouble at all , he's turned out to be a lovely young man. Of course I know I had something to do with the person he is now, but to be honest I never really knew what I was doing. I think most people just hope they are doing the right thing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"But I didn't say they showed actual paedopilia I said that they show that it would seem he is, not that they show he definately is a paedophile."

I never said you did.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As for the waking in the car, people can arrive at whatever conclusion they like as long as they realise that they are doing so. Someone arriving at a conclusion, however obvious, doesn't make it fact until proven so.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Last point: I see why people are saying it too and if you look, I've agreed he's a paedophile by definition, but so are many people. Big difference to having a dossier on kids.

Originally posted by daronisgod
If he purposely goes on the internet to find underage girls to have sex with, then he's a paedophile, in the sense that pretty much everyone besides you (and the dictionary) think of a paedophile.

Not quite the dictionary definition, but that would ruin the point, so carry on.

The whole first part of your post, with all due respect, was just pretentious "I'm a parent, you're not."

Not being a parent doesn't equate to not knowing what it entails. I've been through this whole "Wait till you're a parent". Thankfully I won't have to deal with kids, should I have however, I am merely stating that I wouldn't let my daughter go strolling off in that situation. Never stated I'd completely control.

"Alpha Centauri: "I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?"

That was actually an unedited mistype. Meant to says "That claim they show factual paedophilia." Apologies for the confusion.

"If he purposely goes on the internet to find underage girls to have sex with, then he's a paedophile, in the sense that pretty much everyone besides you (and the dictionary) think of a paedophile."

Has this been proven though? I'm sure he's had sex with alot of legal people.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The whole first part of your post, with all due respect, was just pretentious "I'm a parent, you're not."

Not being a parent doesn't equate to not knowing what it entails. I've been through this whole "Wait till you're a parent". Thankfully I won't have to deal with kids, should I have however, I am merely stating that I wouldn't let my daughter go strolling off in that situation. Never stated I'd completely control.

No, I didn't mean it like that at all.

I'm just saying that there are too many variables to the situation for you to be able to say that you wouldn't let your child go wondering off, how would you stop her, if she wanted to go, some parents have absolutely no control of their children what-so-ever. There's a TV series on over here in the UK called 'brat camp', some of those parents have other children who are just like most kids and then there are those who are completely out of control.

I guess what I'm saying is that your child could sneak out, make you think she's going somewhere else how would know otherwise. What if she said she was going to meet some friends, but went to meet some 39 year old guy she met on the internet instead or met in a shopping center or well anywhere?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Alpha Centauri: "I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?"

That was actually an unedited mistype. Meant to says "That claim they show factual paedophilia." Apologies for the confusion.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"If he purposely goes on the internet to find underage girls to have sex with, then he's a paedophile, in the sense that pretty much everyone besides you (and the dictionary) think of a paedophile."

Has this been proven though? I'm sure he's had sex with alot of legal people.

"What if she said she was going to meet some friends, but went to meet some 39 year old guy she met on the internet instead or met in a shopping center or well anywhere?"

None of the parents I know have gone through shit like that. The fact that they are intelligent, responsible parents isn't coincidence.

"No, I'm just taking issue with your definition of paedophile, it might be the dictionary definition, but you and I both know that people use "paedophile" to describe certain types of people."

Dictionary definition is anyone with an attraction to young children or those underage. So he is a paedophile by definition. There's been one, possibly two cases, provable. Doesn't make him a serial paedogeddon.

-AC

Consensual sex or not he is old enough to know that is illegal to be sleeping with teens. Unless he really is very stupid or mentally challenge he might have an excuse. Great! Now it seems we have another MJ trial coming soon.

what a moron both of them...

Technically you cannot legally consent when underage.

However, if she did actually consent, I don't think she should be walking around like a victim. (Not implying she is, don't know the girl)

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Technically you cannot legally consent when underage.

As I've said...oh, 3-4 times already? Heh...

(not picking on you here, just pointing out that that's been said already and people seem to have not noticed it)