Pedophile Boast Website, Hoping for Tolerance
If you have children or know of one who does, please read this article by Fox News.
Apparently a 45 year old man, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, is walking a thin line of mental/physical pedophilia. He has had a website (which you can get the link at Fox News) that “has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.”
“McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.”
His desire seems to be to take pictures of children (most likely without the parents’ consents), and post those to his site so other pedophiles (whether previously convicted of sex crimes or not) will be able to view them as “a way to get some relief”.
Apparently he would also like for people to give tolerance to pedophilia, because he said, “"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me. They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."”
He even goes so far as to say, “"I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.”
This reminds me of the topic I have somewhat discussed concerning homosexuality. It is a known fact that homosexuality is considered morally wrong by society for a very long time with only recently a minority demanding that it be overturned to morally acceptable.
Apparently a 45 year old man, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, is walking a thin line of mental/physical pedophilia. He has had a website (which you can get the link at Fox News) that “has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.”
“McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.”
His desire seems to be to take pictures of children (most likely without the parents’ consents), and post those to his site so other pedophiles (whether previously convicted of sex crimes or not) will be able to view them as “a way to get some relief”.
Apparently he would also like for people to give tolerance to pedophilia, because he said, “"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me. They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."”
He even goes so far as to say, “"I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.”
This reminds me of the topic I have somewhat discussed concerning homosexuality. It is a known fact that homosexuality is considered morally wrong by society for a very long time with only recently a minority demanding that it be overturned to morally acceptable.
As in this case, we are shown people have morally wrong desires, yet there have been laws against the act. They are not convicted for the desires until the desires moved them to cross over the line. The problem is when the laws are removed for the sake of tolerance.
The claim is that it doesn’t harm anyone and that acceptance of it will build tolerance. So we are to be tolerant of that which is deemed morally wrong, which in turn will make it morally acceptable, therefore creating intolerance of all who then oppose it?
Then consider this pedophile which is creating a website of pictures of children to attract other pedophiles (whether convicted or not of sex crimes). Is taking the pictures personally physically hurting anyone? It seems as if most (if not all) have no idea they are taken until they are found on the site.
Are we to be tolerant of this type of behavior and accept pedophilia was morally acceptable as long as they do not engaged in an act that is against the law too – for the sake of tolerance?
I don't know about you but I have no desire to have pictures of my children used to promote, accommodate, or lend relief to a perverted mind that has a sexual desire for children.
Will this be the next "lifestyle" choice that is brought to court demanding equality and tolerance?
20 comments:
I think I shall not mince words here. Somehow, I think you are either very ignorant, or very stupid, or the combination of both.
Homosexuality is a sexual act between two consensual adults. Paedophilia is a sexual act between an adult and an unwilling/unsuspecting minor. Got the point?
In the case of the Fox News article, the report is correct in the sense that the law cannot charge the man, since he has not been caught committing paedophiliac offences.
It is the same thing with porno websites that promote rape and other sexual crimes. Writing and imagining doesn't constitute a crime.
Paedophilia is a sexual act between an adult and an unwilling/unsuspecting minor.
1] The guy says, "I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it."
2] Paedophilia is: a sexual attraction to children
The point is both are a sexual lifestyle choice, both have been considered by society as morally wrong and both acts have been deemed as against the law.
If we are to change our morality to tolerate one, why would not the other push society to change it also.
Is it okay if a 3-11 wants to have a relationship with the 45 year old? I think not.
Your stupidity knows no bounds:
1. How the hell do you expect a three year old to initiate sexual contact with an adult???
2. Ok, I goofed up a little on the definition part (just came back from work, brain's a little loose for Oxfords dictionary), but the general idea is, homosexuality differs from paedophilia in the sense that it does not involve minors.
Geez. Are you sure you really don't understand what I am saying, or are you playing dumb? If it is the latter, don't blame me if I start hurling expletives at you.
I have zero tolerance for fools.
I believe you fail to see my reasoning for which you often appear to have no tolerance for those which disagree with you.
And a note from my highschool English teacher:
"The use of expletives does not show a sign of intelligence."
Your teacher is a moron.
A good writer/orator uses expletives to drive home a point strongly across to the reader/listener.
A great example of this is Bill Hicks,whose explete-littered jokes were the highlight of his shows. Christopher Hitchens also uses strong language to good effect.
I have zero tolerance for fools, that much I will admit.
Just goes to show how much respect I have for you, if there is any left.
If you are not capable of carrying out an intelligent debate, expect to be lampooned.
expletives: An exclamation or oath, especially one that is profane, vulgar, or obscene.
Respect is earned. I accept that you may have no respect for me, but you have often failed to display the character deserving of my repsect so pardon me if I do not show you the respect that you feel you deserve.
Hmm. Oh well, that's fine with me. You don't have no respect for anyone outside the Christian realm anyway.
For someone who is as dishonest as you, that's to be expected.
You don't have no respect for anyone outside the Christian realm anyway.
This statement has no merit or foundation and so is the dishonesty comment, but I have come to expect the personal attacks you so often enjoy giving.
Mr Splinter
People can read, Sir, and so can those atheists whom you address to at atheist blogs.
Christians like you, hell, I have come across many, many times. They act, Mr Splinter, and so do you.
I have been a baptist before, before around hoardes of atheists before, and people like you are never new to me.
You can squirm and evade all my questions and jibes all you want, but deep down you know who you are, and I don't think I need to say more.
lol - And deep down you know you need Christ.
I think you just enjoy having the last word in all my posts.
Looks like you deleted my last post.
In any case, I have been an atheist for more than a decade, and in this time I am very sure that religion does not have the answers that civilization requires to progress to the next stage.
We can't all be reading stuff written 2000 years ago and inculcate moral values of a long-forgotten age to ours. Morals must shift to accomodate social needs,not the other way round.
If you think you can convince me to reconvert back to the Baptist creed, you don't know me well enough. I went through the whole Baptist-conservative thing and came out thoroughly unconvinced. And I have read the bible more intensely than most Christians to understand why the bible is flawed and cannot simply justify as a codified moral code.
Which civilization do you think will reach the next stage? The red states have more children than the blue states. France and Germany, which are fairly secular, are being overrun by Muslims because the French and Germans will not have more than 2.2 children per family.
As such, it is a numbers game. Those who procreate the most will have the benefit of gene longevity. Those that procreate the least will have no one to carry on their ideas.
Of course, since atheists have an elastic code of ethics they could force breeding or simply kill large numbers of people. That should get the numbers to where they need to be in order to reach the stage.
Perhaps you could come up with a Five Year Plan or something? Yeah, no one has ever done that before.
Funny you mention the five year plan.
Historicans acknowledge the fact that had Stalin not implemented the five year plan, Russia would never have been able to repel the Nazis. Thanks to the thousands of war factories which could retrofit themselves from manufacturing fridges to tanks and warplanes, Russia was able to mount a successive counteroffensive, albeit at a high cost to human life.
Of course, the five year plan did cost enormous hardships, especially to an agriculture-based economy such as Russia, but it was a brutal necessity for the survival of the Motherland.
Just heard on the local news channel that a guy here just got arrested for taking inappropriate pictures-- "focused on their chests and backsides" --of young girls at a water park.
Apparently here we have a law called "Video Voyeurism" which means you can't take pictures, videos, etc. (especially like this) of someone without their knowledge.
I highly doubt Russia could have defeated Germany without the assistance of the US (or inclement weather), five year plan or not.
The five year plan cost more than hardships. It destroyed families and freedoms for a large amount of people.
Sean:
History was my pet subject in school, and so I think I am entitled to make my observations.
The Americans entered the war very, very late, and really,they were more concerned with the Brits (Who were in real danger of being swallowed up by the Nazis....Had the Luffwaffe been successful in annihilating the RAF, Operation Sealion would have been launched successfully) than the Russians, whom the Americans distrust.
Furthermore, the Russians also had the Japanese to contend with on their turf.
To say that the Five Year Plan was useless in Russia's war efforts is akin to claiming that Hitler never created concentration camps for Jews.
Like I have said, there is no doubt that the five year plan was callous, cruel and harmful, particularly the agricultural peasants who were forcefully assimilated into the Industrial sector.
But Stalin had little choice in the matter. If he had stuck to Lenin's pacifist attitude towards modernization, Russia would have become a true backwater of Europe, a kind of sick, impotent giant of a nation who can't even walk with the help of a walking stick.
You guys totally got off the point by throwing insults at each other. Why not stop being personal and stay with the issue.Should it be illegal to maintain a website which instructs people how to oogle little girls? That's the question. And if you ARE in favor of limiting free speach like this, let me remind you there are also websites which teach people how to comit mass murder. Why aren't you expressing anger about that? Do you think that posting instructions on how to murder dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of human beings is less serious than taking pictures of little girls while they play in the park and making those pictures available to other people to look at?
Remember anonymous. You just said we got off topic. The topic is the post of pictures of boys and girls for a pedophile website, not mass murder. I do not agree with mass murder either, but the news article was not about mass murder.
Post a Comment