The Paedophile Hunter

[Wherenextcolumbus]

An excuse for what? I guess you din't simply misrepresent what he said. You also didn't comprehend it.

The person may of resisted their lower urge if they didn't get an easy opportunity basically?

 

[Koldo]

The person may of resisted their lower urge if they didn't get an easy opportunity basically?

What do you comprehend by that?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

What do you comprehend by that?

its a poor excuse and victim blaming. when someone replies to your message saying "I'm only 12 so I know you probably don't want to speak to me" that's the right time to end the conversation not then continue it and say things like "if we cuddled I might get an erection" there is plenty of opportunity to resist.

 

[Koldo]

its a poor excuse and victim blaming. when someone replies to your message saying "I'm only 12 so I know you probably don't want to speak to me" that's the right time to end the conversation not then continue it and say things like "if we cuddled I might get an erection" there is plenty of opportunity to resist.

If you understood it as an excuse and victim blaming then you understood it wrong. It is clear that the adult is completely responsible for engaging into any sexual activity with the teenager. Period.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

If you understood it as an excuse and victim blaming then you understood it wrong. It is clear that the adult is completely responsible for engaging into any sexual activity with the teenager. Period.

And how am I meant to understand it

 

[Koldo]

And how am I meant to understand it

That this set-up attracts opportunists who once presented with a rather rare chance will go for it.
If this didn't happen, they might never ever have tried to have sex with a teenager in their entire lives.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That this set-up attracts opportunists who once presented with a rather rare chance will go for it.
If this didn't happen, they might never ever have tried to have sex with a teenager in their entire lives.

They are still a danger, if they take the opportunity to groom. And he has caught men who have done it before.

 

[Koldo]

They are still a danger, if they take the opportunity to groom. And he has caught men who have done it before.

Drivers are a danger. Swimming pools are a danger. Candles are a danger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Drivers are a danger. Swimming pools are a danger. Candles are a danger.

To combine them is even worse.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Drivers are a danger. Swimming pools are a danger. Candles are a danger.

And we regulate all of those in different ways. If there was a disorder that made them drowns people then we probably wouldn't allow them to have a swimming pool. Similarly people with epilepsy or any kind of disorder that could cause them to suddenly black out or loose control of their body are not permitted to drive except under circumstances where their disorder is under control.

 

[Koldo]

And we regulate all of those in different ways. If there was a disorder that made them drowns people then we probably wouldn't allow them to have a swimming pool. Similarly people with epilepsy or any kind of disorder that could cause them to suddenly black out or loose control of their body are not permitted to drive except under circumstances where their disorder is under control.

Of course.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Drivers are a danger. Swimming pools are a danger. Candles are a danger.

And? They have taken the opportunity to break the law and possibly assault a child. That is their full responsibility, it doesn't matter if they wouldn't have done it without the opportunity to. When given the chance to interact with a child/young person they steered the conversation into grooming. So what is your point exactly?

 

[Koldo]

And?

And... being a 'danger' doesn't mean much in itself.

They have taken the opportunity to break the law and possibly assault a child. That is their full responsibility, it doesn't matter if they wouldn't have done it without the opportunity to. When given the chance to interact with a child/young person they steered the conversation into grooming. So what is your point exactly?

I have already said it is their responsibility. Many times.
What is the point of this set-up though? Is it simply to get people in jail, or is it to get people who are an actual threat to children into jail ?
If those people could have gone through their entire lives without ever having sex with a minor, how are they a threat to them ?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

And... being a 'danger' doesn't mean much in itself.



I have already said it is their responsibility. Many times.
What is the point of this set-up though? Is it simply to get people in jail, or is it to get people who are an actual threat to children into jail ?
If those people could have gone through their entire lives without ever having sex with a minor, how are they a threat to them ?

What you're saying makes no sense. They are a threat to children if they are using the opportunity to groom someone they believe is a child and meet up for sexual purposes. That COULD have been a real child. If it was a real child that they were interacting with, they would have done the same thing, because they believed they were talking to a child in the first place. How could you possibly not understand that?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And... being a 'danger' doesn't mean much in itself.



I have already said it is their responsibility. Many times.
What is the point of this set-up though? Is it simply to get people in jail, or is it to get people who are an actual threat to children into jail ?
If those people could have gone through their entire lives without ever having sex with a minor, how are they a threat to them ?

Without this hunter, dating apps and minors would still exist, with predatory behavior still providing opportunities whether the sting operation exists or not.

Is this argument a declaration that older adults who sexually chat up with 12-15 year olds, and then attempt to meet up for a date, are more likely to never be a threat?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have already said it is their responsibility. Many times.
What is the point of this set-up though? Is it simply to get people in jail, or is it to get people who are an actual threat to children into jail ?
If those people could have gone through their entire lives without ever having sex with a minor, how are they a threat to them ?

Many of these predators are repeat offenders that never get caught. Only a few rapes are actually reported and even fewer cases of other sexual abuse. Then children and minors even less so. The vast majority of these abuses are not caught. This is an effective way of finding the predators that are active. Its like setting a bait care in an area that has been suffering serial car thrift.

 

[Koldo]

What you're saying makes no sense. They are a threat to children if they are using the opportunity to groom someone they believe is a child and meet up for sexual purposes. That COULD have been a real child. If it was a real child that they were interacting with, they would have done the same thing, because they believed they were talking to a child in the first place. How could you possibly not understand that?

They didn't think they were talking to a child. They thought they were talking to a teenager. ( Or at least the cases I have read )
Having sex with a teenager is not in itself a threat to a teenager.

With that out of the way, the circumstances surrounding the sexual encounter were uncommon and none of the men appeared to have been actively looking to have sex with a teenager specifically, which means these circumstances might not have otherwise happened.

 

[Koldo]

Without this hunter, dating apps and minors would still exist, with predatory behavior still providing opportunities whether the sting operation exists or not.

Is this argument a declaration that older adults who sexually chat up with 12-15 year olds, and then attempt to meet up for a date, are more likely to never be a threat?

Define 'threat'.

 

[Midnight Rain]

They didn't think they were talking to a child. They thought they were talking to a teenager. ( Or at least the cases I have read )
Having sex with a teenager is not in itself a threat to a teenager.

With that out of the way, the circumstances surrounding the sexual encounter were uncommon and none of the men appeared to have been actively looking to have sex with a teenager specifically, which means these circumstances might not have otherwise happened.

It seems that you may have an issue with the age of consent rather than the way that these individuals are caught. Surely you would have a huge problem with them doing something with 8 year olds yes? In the eyes of the law a 14 year old is just as illegal as an 8 year old. If there is an argument to be had that it shouldn't be this way then I could understand your argument. But from the position that it is 17 or less are all illegal I don't fully understand your problem with it.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

They didn't think they were talking to a child. They thought they were talking to a teenager. ( Or at least the cases I have read )
Having sex with a teenager is not in itself a threat to a teenager.

With that out of the way, the circumstances surrounding the sexual encounter were uncommon and none of the men appeared to have been actively looking to have sex with a teenager specifically, which means these circumstances might not have otherwise happened.

In the UK if you send 2 or more messages to someone under the age of 16 that are sexual it is classified as grooming. They were breaking the law, therefore they are a threat to children/young people under the age of 16. It doesn't matter that they are a young teen, it's illegal in the UK. Legally they are a threat. The fact that a lot of them were willing to meet up with someone they believed to be under the age of 16, shows intent for assault.

Once again it doesn't matter if SOME of them were not actively seeking out children. When presented with the opportunity to interact with what they believed to be a person under the age of 16, they attempted to groom and most of the time meet up with them. That means they are a threat to people who are under the age of 16 and are online using social media.