Pedophillia

Started by Alpha Centauri10 pages

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Ahh...There's that corridor-esque world-view of yours again! I meant what I typed - 'illude'.

Ask my friend, www.dictionary.com about it...

Yeah, I know what illude means. It's not applicable. You said the point "should illude" me. It's quite clear the word you were looking for is elude, meaning that you believed the point escaped me. Illude means to mock and or deceive. Or as your friend Dictionary says:

To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

Nothing about missing or overlooking.

Go climb a tree or something.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, I know what illude means. It's not applicable. You said the point "should illude" me. It's quite clear the word you were looking for is elude, meaning that you believed the point escaped me. Illude means to mock and or deceive. Or as your friend Dictionary says:

To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

Nothing about missing or overlooking.

Go climb a tree or something.

English is difficult and sometimes children need help.

AC, you originally stated:

Alot of paedophilia gets blown way out of proportion as many have said, for no other reason other than kids are involved.

Proof being in a paper yesterday there was a headline: "Arsonists kill 4 year old baby" or something.

I was reading it, then I noticed that the mother was tied up and left to burn alive. Yet they chose to highlight the fact that a baby died. It's child worship. You either love everyone from all ages equally or you can shut up.

Obviously, the real reason why children are focused on has illuded you in as you fail to recognise it. Thus, you have been deceived.

You're very welcome.

PS. 'Alot' is not a word. Did you fail Grade 1 or have you not reached it yet?

why don't you instead of focusing on people spelling/grammar/whatever (*gets prepared to be attacked*) say something relevant to the topic?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
English is difficult and sometimes children need help.

OH I LOVE THIS! The old "Couldn't beat him in one thread, gonna try another". Sweet.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Obviously, the real reason why children are focused on has illuded you in as you fail to recognise it. Thus, you have been deceived.

You're very welcome.

PS. 'Alot' is not a word. Did you fail Grade 1?

Failure to recognise doesn't have anything to do with being deceived. Being deceived is when an outside influence PURPOSEFULLY and with intent, feeds a false story or issue to mislead.

Failure to recognise is eluding. As I said, you said the point "should illude" me meaning that I failed to recognise it, right? Let's refer to your friend.

ILLUDE:

\Il*lude"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Illuded; p. pr. & vb. n. Illuding.] [L. illudere, illusum; pref. il- in + ludere to play: cf. OF. illuder. See Ludicrous.] To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

That's not applicable to the notion in which you said it. So let's see what you meant, being that you said you meant "Failed to recognise":

ELUDE:

tr.v. e·lud·ed, e·lud·ing, e·ludes
To evade or escape from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill: The suspect continues to elude the police.
To escape the understanding or grasp of: a name that has always eluded me; a metaphor that eluded them. See Synonyms at escape.

So yes. You said "illude". You meant "elude".

Hope this has cleared things up 🙂. Glad we could have this chat.

-AC

Reposted again as AC and his friends behaviour took us off topic

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I posted these links and this pieces of text a while ago in another
thread, its crazy at the turn of this century the uk was whipped into a frenzy by the media who created a moral panic and turned a "paediatrician" into someone very scared as he was mistaken by an ignorant mob for a paedophile.

In comparison to the past, children today are relatively safe. During the years 1983-93, 57 children were killed by strangers in the UK - an average of five a year... when one considers that there are 12 million children in the UK, the risk of murder by a stranger is statistically negligible.
- F Furedi, Culture Of Fear, 1997
The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard1 (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
- US Department of Health Survey, September 1996

This bit is scary the English more so than the Welsh and Scots went insane:-

From Plymouth to Portsmouth, Manchester to London, wrongly identified men and known paedophiles found themselves being hounded by mobs up to 300-strong.

The vigilante action was most severe on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, where protesters circulated a list of 20 alleged sex offenders in the community and proceeded to target them.

The crowds - 40 of whom were later charged with offences - smashed windows, torched cars and forced five families wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders out of their homes. A suspected paedophile in nearby Southampton shot himself dead and a female registrar was hounded from her South Wales home because neighbours confused "paediatrician" with "paedophile."

As senior police officers warned that such action would end in murder, the News of the World called off its ambitious naming and shaming project, and called instead for "Sarah's Law'.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,618198,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891476,00.html

We've had paediatricians attacked because people get "paediatrician" confused with "paedophile". Whose next? I've got relations in Ireland called "Paddy O'Farrell"; that sounds a bit like "paedophile", so maybe the mob will storm their houses as well. And as for Iraqi paedophiles posing as asylum seekers, well they're the worst of the lot.

This bit is hilarious

Brass Eye Special

As always, the programme took the form of a spoof documentary. In Channel 4's own words, there were five fundamental themes:

Media hysteria
Misinformation
Sexualisation of children
Media hypocrisy
Public debate
The programme makers approached 315 public figures and invited them to take part in promoting a paedophile awareness campaign. This campaign was a set-up. They were asked to read scripts containing ludicrous assertions, including:

Internet paedophiles can project poison gas through a child's keyboard using the new HOECS3 system.

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than humans.

'Trust Me Trousers', which were inflated to hide a paedophile's erection.

Supporting a group called 'Nonce4 Sense'.

Amazingly, several celebrities fell for it and happily regurgitated this rubbish for the camera. These people included

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A676424

It really saties the ridiculous moral panic and forlk devils created by the British media on paedophiles at the turn of the century.

The crazy thing and don't tell Deano is David Icke may well have got it right this time 😕 and don't tell Deano I read some David Icke and agreed with it on this - OK

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/europe/england/080101a.html

I would like to point out again I think this thread is a flame as the guy who started it is showing a picture of a child star in his avatar called Dakota Fanning and states his location as in Dakota. He also calls himself "eleven inches" read into all that what you will.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Failure to recognise doesn't have anything to do with being deceived. Being deceived is when an outside influence PURPOSEFULLY and with intent, feeds a false story or issue to mislead.

Failure to recognise is eluding. As I said, you said the point "should illude" me meaning that I failed to recognise it, right? Let's refer to your friend.

ILLUDE:

\Il*lude"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Illuded; p. pr. & vb. n. Illuding.] [L. illudere, illusum; pref. il- in + ludere to play: cf. OF. illuder. See Ludicrous.] [b]To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

That's not applicable to the notion in which you said it. So let's see what you meant, being that you said you meant "Failed to recognise":

ELUDE:

tr.v. e·lud·ed, e·lud·ing, e·ludes
To evade or escape from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill: The suspect continues to elude the police.
To escape the understanding or grasp of: a name that has always eluded me; a metaphor that eluded them. See Synonyms at escape.

So yes. You said "illude". You meant "elude".

Hope this has cleared things up 🙂. Glad we could have this chat. [/B]

My dear boy! Words fail me! I shall ask my son, Jesus, to pray for you.

I have a little daughter and it would kill me if she got molested...and I would probably kill the sicko. But I think from a philosophical perspective, humans who have children worry specifically about these kinds of people, while those who are not affected probably see it as being a moral issue rather than a survival one.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
My dear boy! Words fail me! I shall ask my son, Jesus, to pray for you.

Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

Whirly, you like Brass Eye?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

Whirly, you like Brass Eye?

-AC

He was foolish to argue a position which he could not win!

Yes I do

Re: Pedophillia

Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.

I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.

Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?

What are your thoughts on this topic?

Thinking about illegal activities doesn't put you in jail. It doesn't become illegal until you "express" that desire to another individual.
For example..if you told your friend that you were thinking about killing your teacher, you could then be arrested on the basis of making death threats. So yeah, it is against the law to "express" illegal thoughts which could be deemed "threatening."

Pedophilia is a very heinous crime, especially since young children lives are at stake. Any individual who consistently expresses to others their thoughts about engaging in illegal activities, particularly those involving the hurting of young children..should at the very least be stringently monitored by authorities.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Yes I do

You're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shhhhrub rocketeer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shhhhrub rocketeer.

-AC

😂

Best terms ever I swear.

Whirly, when he says shrub rocketeer be sure to listen to "Peter" doing some kind of a stressed exhale. So funny.

-AC

"tete a derrier?"

"Quite frankly, yes!"

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Best terms ever I swear.

Whirly, when he says shrub rocketeer be sure to listen to "Peter" doing some kind of a stressed exhale. So funny.

-AC

I thought that bit with the paedophile "watching" from the monitor was funny.

Did you like the 11 o'clock show as well🙂

Wasn't bad really.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

There's that ugly braggadocio, again...

AC, I'm really just trying to help you. Your behavior is a lot - notice, 'a' and 'lot', not 'alot' - like the autistic child who can only accept that which conforms to his narrow understanding. When I was your age, I did some volunteer work with people with learning difficulties. After a while, you realise that their problems are rigid and have to be coped with rather than changed. You, on the other hand, can change. The sooner you do it, the sooner you will recognise the fool you have been. I wish you luck.

Hahaha, gotta love how your one saving grace is a space between two letters. Somehow I think we forgot how you just completely used the dictionary to prove yourself wrong and look like a complete failure.

I'm the shit, don't hate. Just step your game up.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, gotta love how your one saving grace is a space between two letters. Somehow I think we forgot how you just completely used the dictionary to prove yourself wrong and look like a complete failure.

I'm the shit, don't hate. Just step your game up.

-AC

Shit! I've only just realised you were being sarcastic the whole time!

Yes.

Feel free to jump off me any time now.

-AC