The Spiritual Chickenshits

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Neither of them have actually done it. It was a hypothetical question that could have been phrased better. However, they both stated they would, in fact, leave their kids with self-confessed pedos. That, there's no arguing. They just haven't done it yet.

It would be a shame if such a person was left alone with violent criminals, after the prison guards "adjusted," of course.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Knowingly leaving your children alone with a pedophile is utterly depraved and criminal.

Screenshots please.

What CPD said.  Here are the direct quotes

If I was in the situation I described I probably wouldn't change anything with that friend.  I might avoid letting them watch my kids for a bit while I adjusted to the news, but I would like to think that I would continue to accept that friend for who they were even with the new information about them.

Personally if I found out about something like this, in one of my friends, who had spent time with my daughter I'd ask her an awful lot of questions.  Trying to be careful so that she didn't figure out why I was asking them unless he had actually done something to her.

My daughter is smart and independent enough that I think she would have come to me if anyone did anything to her anyways, but I know that getting kids not to say anything is something pedos are good at, she's not much good at all at lying though, so I'm fairly sure that if I were asking her about it she'd start crying if it had happened, and then I'd know.

Meanwhile, if the guy has not done anything to her, and now he's told me he fantasizes about children,  I think my daughter would be safer with him than she had been before.  If he was going to do something he wouldn't have told me about his fantasies, unless he's some very strange breed of idiot.

Don't forget this gem of an earlier post:

It depends on how much a person indulges/feeds the fantasy.

Fantasies and fetishes should not result in jail time unless they are acted on in a way that causes harm to someone, but, as an example, let's look at pedophiles who indulge their fantasies by writing pedo fiction, looking at pedo drawings, and watching porn that has legal-age actors and actresses who are so under-developed that they appear to be prepubescent.

Indulging and reinforcing the fantasies usually strengthens the arousal power of the fetish.

They aren't doing anything illegal and shouldn't go to jail for thoughtcrime, but are they mentally healthy? Are they making good choices for mental and social health? Do you want them to babysit your kids?

It is everyone's right to shun people whose behavior and beliefs they find repugnant. That is not the same as having laws against thoughtcrime.

True, but say someone very close to you who you have let watch your kids and who you trust fully suddenly comes out and confides that they get off over the idea of having sex with kids.  He hasn't ever and would never do anything to your kids, he loves them as his own.   Say he does all the things you mentioned in the privacy of his own home.  Say it's a big aspect of his psyche, maybe even that his wife knows and dresses up as a schoolgirl for him every night.  He's no different now than he was before he told you.  Would you shun him for that?  Never let him around your kids again?

That's my concern with all of this.  Unless someone comes out and says what their kinks are we don't know.  That doesn't change anyone's kinks, but tearing apart people who do come out about such things will teach others never to talk about it.  Personally I'd rather know.  If it's out there it seems that much more visible and safer.  I'd be less concerned over someone who is forthright about it than someone who hides it simply because to me it seems that if someone says "Hey, I get off on bouquets of flowers" they are less likely to actually abuse my flower arrangements because they know I'd drop the blame straight on them.  Things that are repressed seem more likely to be acted on than things that are addressed in a safe and sane way.

[Cain]

Ah yes, the moral-equivalence of flower fetishists(?) and child abusers.  A classic in the field of Wyldkat Logic, and yet another puzzle for future philosophers at the Lovecrafty Institute for Rape and Being Mired In Cartesian Dualism to scratch their heads over.

[Cuddlefish]

I cannot even believe someone would attempt to justify this.

Who gives a rats ass how good a friend he was previously?

"Hey, man, the guy watching your chickens is a wolf."

"That's ok, because now that I know that, I feel safer. I mean, I trust that WOLF wouldn't eat MY chickens. If he were gonna eat my chickens, why would he tell me he was a wolf?"

WTF? RED FUCKING FLAG!

Shit, if someone tells me they are a type of person that exhibits a particular form of behaviour, then WHY WOULD I EXPECT THEM TO NOT EXHIBIT THAT BEHAVIOUR???!!!1

This is beyond assinine (assiten). I can't even believe I'm reading this.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Between myself, Freeky and Nigel, we have pointed out that the only thing which shows a desire to not follow up on ones fantasies for a pedophile is chemical castration and that "admitting" to something like this can be part of a grooming strategy for especially ballsy pedophiles, and that a disturbingly large number of children are abused by people who are known to be inclined that way.

But such statements seem to have been mostly ignored.

I would agree that chemical castration is about the only thing a pedophile could do for some measure of redemption.

And that is invaluable information about the "admitting" trick. I didn't know that.

I bet those comments have only been publicly ignored.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Ah yes, the moral-equivalence of flower fetishists(?) and child abusers.  A classic in the field of Wyldkat Logic, and yet another puzzle for future philosophers at the Lovecrafty Institute for Rape and Being Mired In Cartesian Dualism to scratch their heads over.

It's the safe and sane way.

[BabylonHoruv]

I can't believe these people are parents. Well, I can, because anyone can spawn. But they are talking about being OK with pedos remaining their friends because they "know" and that makes their children safer, or something. Which is barfhilarious because most parents of molested kids know they are in contact with pedos. THEY FUCKING KNOW. This is so disgusting I can't fucking believe it.

Now hang on a second.  I never said that I'd be okay with the guy being alone with the monkey. 

I don't think anyone, other than Corpsefucker and his Bride, took your statement that way.

I also did not take her statement that way.

If they plan to diddle your kids, they WON'T tell you, dumbass.

That was my point.  I'd rather know than not know for exactly that reason.

How would you know, then?

Because it LOOKS like what you're saying is that if you're really OPEN and ACCEPTING about this shit, they're going to CONFIDE in you and you can find another babysitter.

Which is cretinous. Even for you.

Um, no.  If I was in the situation I described I probably wouldn't change anything with that friend.  I might avoid letting them watch my kids for a bit while I adjusted to the news, but I would like to think that I would continue to accept that friend for who they were even with the new information about them.

It just seems, to me at least, that being open about such things seems a lot more "safe and sane" than not being so.

I said I did not take Freeky's statement that way.

[Cain]

And that is invaluable information about the "admitting" trick. I didn't know that.

I've done a couple of courses on child protection, as you'd expect.  One method I have read about is admitting to a certain level of "indiscretion" or "questionable behaviour" - people tend to trust those who actually divulge secrets to them.  Precisely because that person now feels they know more about the person in question, they feel safer, as they'll be more alert for anything going wrong.

Unfortunately, it's part of a grooming process.  The aim is always to get the trust of the guardians of the children, in order to deflect their suspicions.  And one of the best ways to do that is to come clean (or partly clean) and feed a perception of superiority on the part of the guardian.

It's a ballsy move, as I mentioned above, but it works.  I also came across elements of it being used by certain people in the horrific Dutroux case in Belgium, whose names currently escape me.  One of the victims, her abuser was the boyfriend of her mother.  He had previously been done on child abuse, and admitted as much to her.  Yet within 3 months of seeing her, he'd been given a key to the house and allowed to visit whenever - and "look after" the victim, who was 11 years old at the time.

[BabylonHoruv]

Between myself, Freeky and Nigel, we have pointed out that the only thing which shows a desire to not follow up on ones fantasies for a pedophile is chemical castration and that "admitting" to something like this can be part of a grooming strategy for especially ballsy pedophiles, and that a disturbingly large number of children are abused by people who are known to be inclined that way.

But such statements seem to have been mostly ignored.

I didn't ignore them.  If I ever meet a confessed pedo in the future I am going to keep that grooming thing in mind and keep a very careful eye on him or her.

I didn't respond to them because I was busy with other things and just like my statement that I had changed my mind about whether child rape was bad enough that the victim would be better off dead my changing of position would be ignored and I expect Nigel is going to spam the accusation that I would knowingly leave my daughter alone with a pedophile no matter what I may say in the future.

[Cain]

Ah yes, the moral-equivalence of flower fetishists(?) and child abusers.  A classic in the field of Wyldkat Logic, and yet another puzzle for future philosophers at the Lovecrafty Institute for Rape and Being Mired In Cartesian Dualism to scratch their heads over.

It's the safe and sane way.

Wyldkat Logic is producing so many incoherent ethical and moral dilemmas, it will keep the Lovecrafty Institute at work for decades.

[BabylonHoruv]

Between myself, Freeky and Nigel, we have pointed out that the only thing which shows a desire to not follow up on ones fantasies for a pedophile is chemical castration and that "admitting" to something like this can be part of a grooming strategy for especially ballsy pedophiles, and that a disturbingly large number of children are abused by people who are known to be inclined that way.

But such statements seem to have been mostly ignored.

I would agree that chemical castration is about the only thing a pedophile could do for some measure of redemption.

And that is invaluable information about the "admitting" trick. I didn't know that.

I bet those comments have only been publicly ignored.

In my case that is exactly the case. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Between myself, Freeky and Nigel, we have pointed out that the only thing which shows a desire to not follow up on ones fantasies for a pedophile is chemical castration and that "admitting" to something like this can be part of a grooming strategy for especially ballsy pedophiles, and that a disturbingly large number of children are abused by people who are known to be inclined that way.

But such statements seem to have been mostly ignored.

I didn't ignore them.  If I ever meet a confessed pedo in the future I am going to keep that grooming thing in mind and keep a very careful eye on him or her.

I didn't respond to them because I was busy with other things and just like my statement that I had changed my mind about whether child rape was bad enough that the victim would be better off dead my changing of position would be ignored and I expect Nigel is going to spam the accusation that I would knowingly leave my daughter alone with a pedophile no matter what I may say in the future.

Actually, I am talking about Wyldkat, who flat out stated that she would do so. And you, as usual, white-knighted to her rescue by accusing Freeky of defending pedos.

And speaking as a parent, the idea of another parent "keeping a careful eye" on a confessed pedo is really disturbing. I'd keep my eye on them just long enough for them to leave my sight and never come back into it.

I cannot wrap my mind around this concept of parents who are like "well, he's a pedo, so I'll just have to be careful about letting my kids spend time with them".

Yeah, you have to be careful... careful to keep that person COMPLETELY OUT of your children's lives.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I wonder how the percentage of people who know how they're being conned but still decide to pull the wool back over their eyes in regard to this subject compares to people who have been disproved about anything and cling to their illusions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh, and it's worth it to me keeping the "better off dead" thing in mind, because even if you've changed your mind, it's a strong indicator of a very warped perspective from the beginning. All interactions are judged based on previous interactions, and the convergence of your fetish, your writing erotica about your fetish, your statement that if your daughter was ever raped you hoped they'd kill her, followed by:

Personally if I found out about something like this, in one of my friends, who had spent time with my daughter I'd ask her an awful lot of questions.  Trying to be careful so that she didn't figure out why I was asking them unless he had actually done something to her.

My daughter is smart and independent enough that I think she would have come to me if anyone did anything to her anyways, but I know that getting kids not to say anything is something pedos are good at, she's not much good at all at lying though, so I'm fairly sure that if I were asking her about it she'd start crying if it had happened, and then I'd know.

Meanwhile, if the guy has not done anything to her, and now he's told me he fantasizes about children,  I think my daughter would be safer with him than she had been before.  If he was going to do something he wouldn't have told me about his fantasies, unless he's some very strange breed of idiot.

See how the cumulative effect of all these individual details would make people view you, your moral compass, and your motivations with significant suspicion?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Between myself, Freeky and Nigel, we have pointed out that the only thing which shows a desire to not follow up on ones fantasies for a pedophile is chemical castration and that "admitting" to something like this can be part of a grooming strategy for especially ballsy pedophiles, and that a disturbingly large number of children are abused by people who are known to be inclined that way.

But such statements seem to have been mostly ignored.

I didn't ignore them.  If I ever meet a confessed pedo in the future I am going to keep that grooming thing in mind and keep a very careful eye on him or her.

I didn't respond to them because I was busy with other things and just like my statement that I had changed my mind about whether child rape was bad enough that the victim would be better off dead my changing of position would be ignored and I expect Nigel is going to spam the accusation that I would knowingly leave my daughter alone with a pedophile no matter what I may say in the future.

Actually, I am talking about Wyldkat, who flat out stated that she would do so. And you, as usual, white-knighted to her rescue by accusing Freeky of defending pedos.

And speaking as a parent, the idea of another parent "keeping a careful eye" on a confessed pedo is really disturbing. I'd keep my eye on them just long enough for them to leave my sight and never come back into it.

I cannot wrap my mind around this concept of parents who are like "well, he's a pedo, so I'll just have to be careful about letting my kids spend time with them".

Yeah, you have to be careful... careful to keep that person COMPLETELY OUT of your children's lives.

The correct answer seems so painfully obvious that I was shocked that people fall for this and horrified that WK would maintain her position even after the trick was unveiled.

I guess saving face is so important to some people that they'd put their children's lives at risk.