^^^ And if my above response is too cryptic for you I'll break it down for you in real talk:

I hope Jerry Sandusky gets violently gang raped repeatdly by men with 13" cocks that spew nothing but STD riddled semen.

 

We praise them naturally.
We even accept Roman Catholic priests.

 

Let me be clear, to me a terrorist is someone who acts on their desires or encourages others to do so, not someone who occasionally fantasizes about it without ever promoting the idea to anybody else that it is acceptable.

So for my definition I would say a terrorist is definitely more evil than a politician. Hell, I don't even consider politicians evil, misguided yes, but they are doing what they believe to be right. They are not using a vulnerable populous for their own financial and political gain.

Now that is what I call evil. :shock:

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815804

ankle bracelets and nothing more! if it goes further, it could violate human rights.

 

I wish they would not be on this forum or exist period

 

I try not to be judgemental or people's kink, but I do really hate all the threads here about "how young will you go?" Pretty much anything to do with consenting adults is sexy- pedophiles are just vile.

 

"I want to go the heaven for the weather,
Hell for the company,
I wanna go to heaven for the weather,
but hell sure likes fun to me....."
The Streets
(awesome song by the way)

we know the general attidute.
Me?..Im not a kid and dont have any kids....so.....oh wait...have to take the moral high ground...um, cut their balls off? string them up high?...whats the other one..oh yeah, they must be sick and twisted bastards so I would..cut their arms and legs off and as they lay there, mewling in a pool of their own vomit and piss and shit and blood and gore, I would sing an evangelical song while dancing on their torso...because thats not sick at all, Im doing it for the right reasons

 

Off with their heads!

 

Then again, the only pedo,s I knew used to bless me and tell me I would go to heaven when I died.

 

My own opinions:

-I've never had a problem with anything regarding any pubescent and up individuals. That's when nature kicks in. I might find a particularly large age-gapped couple to be wierd, but if they want to...

-Taking advantage, whether by age, underage, pubescent or prepubescent is a bad thing in general. I don't care if they're 8 or 15 or 42.

-Regarding pedophiles, I've always believed that of course it's not their choice and I don't hold anything against them (especially if we're using "Pedophile" not exclusively for prepubescence). However, if they are harming small children, I hold that against them. But not moreso than, say, if someone was to hurt a small child in other ways.

-I think personally that bans on "pedophilic" art (-not- photography, only created images) and stories (especially, for both, involving pubescent individuals) is completely and utterly stupid and to a large degree, unfair. We ban pedophiles (because it's "illegal and sick" to think about children, however, if you look on the stories section, cannabalism stories and murder stories, both of which I contend are much worse than pedophilia, are perfectly fine).

My only problem with pedophiles is if they hurt children. If they want to get off to a pedophilic story, or a pedophilic image (-not- of a real child), then it's their given right to enjoy their sexual preference as much as the next person. Pedophiles should be allowed to indulge their own fetish as much as they want, so long as they don't harm or exploit actual children. If a guy wants to go on a nudist site and look at pictures of small children playing at a nudist beach, fine with me. He's not hurting anyone. Child didn't get hurt either, they were just enjoying their day out. However, if he goes to the beach and does something which hurts the child, that is a problem, not because he's being a pedophile, but because the child is being hurt. In fact, it may curtail their desire. If a pedophile can indulge in their fantasy without interacting with children in that manner, he may be much less likely to try and act out his desires on a child, much the same that someone who lets out their anger in a controlled manner is much less likely to finally blow a gasket while walking down the street and punch a mailbox.

If you have a child fetish, fine. If you have a murder fetish, fine. If you act on your child fetish by harming a child, not fine. If you act on your murder fetish by murdering someone, not fine.

It's our instinct to protect our children from harm. But that doesn't mean we have to turn Pedophiles into social lepers, or conduct a virtual witch-hunt against them. If a guy (or girl for that matter; the sickening gender bias regarding pedophilia appauls me) wants to look at a painting of a nude child online, who are we to care or to stop him? If a guy is looking at your child in the park, fine, you have a right to be wary (not get-up-in-his-face-screaming though). And if a guy starts to move towards your child in the park, then you have the right to break out the shotgun.

Everyone has their right to indulge, provided that they don't harm someone else in the process.

 

I know how wrong this is gonna sound but I do beleive there is a difference between looking and touching. Are you going to deny that when you walk down the street you don't check out or take a second look at girls? and whos to say that they aren't under age? you don't know if your looking at a fully developed young girl, or guy. And then what is your defination of pedophiles or those who are underage? teen pregnacy is striff in todays society, but then is your deffination follows the legal age of the law or do you have a different age limit in mind? and then is there even a age difference you look at in the same state of mind?
(sorry if i got off topic)

 

to all questions.....KILL THEM, death is not good enough. Fantasy or not... Kill, them




KILL



THEM

 

Death isn't good enough for them? Kill them defeats the purpose

 

No it is not wrong at all and I basically agree with you. Im surprised by some of the moronic posts Ive read in response to this thread.

 

Shoot them to death,or banish them to Greenland,the polar bears out number the people there.Eventually they would be the victims.

 

As long as there never leave them within reach of children and everyones happy.
(apart from the pedo of course).

 

I'll answer the first one. In general, I notice people on this forum do not like pedophiles and make a lot of noise and requests to get them banned. In general, they are most unwelcome.

 

There's a special place in hell for child molesters and rapist

 

Pedophiles (anyone over the age of consent having sex with anyone who is not) should be put to death in the slowest most painful way possible. There is no excuse, reason, or justifaction for sex with children ever.

 

And if the person under the age of consent actually wants to have sex?
I believe the age of consent in some states is 16 and goes as high as 18 in others
So are you suggesting that a person having consensual sex with a 16 year old should be painfully put to death in one state and patted on the back in another....