Canadian pedophile outing website goes live!

Mr.Canada · September 11, 2012

How exactly does a website stop them from "hiding in our communities preying on our children?" Just wondering.

By bringing awareness of them to the public in a meaningful way instead of the public having zero knowledge of them loose in our communities preying on our children anonymously.

If the government refuses to protect us and arm us with the information then we as citizens must arm ourselves with it and protect our own communities from these monsters.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Mr.Canada

Black Dog · September 11, 2012

By bringing awareness of them to the public in a meaningful way instead of the public having zero knowledge of them loose in our communities preying on our children anonymously.

This kind of web site won't make much of a difference: the vast majority of children who are sexually abused are abused by someone they know, most often a family member.

If the government refuses to protect us and arm us with the information then we as citizens must arm ourselves with it and protect our own communities from these monsters.

What information is not being made available? According to you rlink, all the stuff on the website is already out there for anyone who wants to look:

Once you commit that kind of a crime, in fact once you commit any crime, you become a public figure," he said.
"That's just the reality.

"You will show up in court records and for certain crimes you'll show up in the media ... you can find that information just simply by typing in a name (into a search engine)."

cybercoma · September 11, 2012

By bringing awareness of them to the public in a meaningful way instead of the public having zero knowledge of them loose in our communities preying on our children anonymously.

If the government refuses to protect us and arm us with the information then we as citizens must arm ourselves with it and protect our own communities from these monsters.

So you have knowledge of their whereabouts. How does that stop them from preying on children?

cybercoma · September 11, 2012

I cannot believe you are defending child molesters here. I know you're left wing but I never dreamed that you'd defend these types of people.

So I guess you'd have no problem having these "people" babysitting for you then if you have children?

After all according to you the sexual desires they have are misunderstood just as homosexuals were a few years ago right?

Are you trying to bring pedophilia into the mainstream with your post? Is this your end goal? I'm seriously curious.

We're talking about convicted pedophiles here and protecting our children from these monsters.

You need to get your head around the fact that there's a difference between being a pedophile and molesting children. A person can be a pedophile without ever acting on those desires.

g_bambino · September 11, 2012

So you have knowledge of their whereabouts. How does that stop them from preying on children?

We can all rest assured and sleep easy at night knowing Mr. Canada will take video of those drooling, lecherous, child molesters (even if they never once molested a child). He did such a good job using that technique against the semen spraying gays in Toronto's Pride parade.

cybercoma · September 11, 2012

We can all rest assured and sleep easy at night knowing Mr. Canada will take video of those drooling, lecherous, child molesters (even if they never once molested a child). He did such a good job using that technique against the semen spraying gays in Toronto's Pride parade.

I get that you're teasing him, but I think he genuinely hasn't considered that a pedophile may have never molested children. I think he's probably specifically talking about people that have committed a crime and are back in society. I'm not sure, but he may not even be aware that children are usually preyed on by someone they know and most positions with children require police clearance that a convicted child molester wouldn't get. Therefore, it's quite often the case that children are preyed on by family members or friends of the family. I just don't believe that Mr. Canada has thought through the practical aspects of these lists. It seems like a good idea, but when you really think about it there's not much that they offer.

September 11, 2012

I cannot believe you are defending child molesters here. I know you're left wing but I never dreamed that you'd defend these types of people.

Try to wrap your head around the fact that all pedophiles aren't child molesters.

Are you trying to bring pedophilia into the mainstream with your post? Is this your end goal? I'm seriously curious.

Then try reading what I said without your preconceived ideas interfering with it. I said that not all pedophiles are criminals. I said that not all pedophiles act on their desires. I said pedophile's brains are wired towards an attraction to children. I said that it's not a choice. I said that I think society would benefit if we recognized these things because pedophiles might be more inclined to seek counselling, and therefore less likely to act on their desires. I explained why.

We're talking about convicted pedophiles here and protecting our children from these monsters.

I clearly said that there is a difference between a pedophile and a criminal pedophile. You, however, made no such distinction in the thread title or your opening post, so I wanted to set the record straight.

g_bambino · September 11, 2012

I think he genuinely hasn't considered that a pedophile may have never molested children.

I tried to take a subtle jibe at his tendency to label all paedophiles (and likely a wider, surrounding group who wouldn't technically qualify as paedophiles) as "child molesters" when I said "Mr. Canada will take video of those... child molesters (even if they never once molested a child)".

GostHacked · September 11, 2012

I cannot believe you are defending child molesters here. I know you're left wing but I never dreamed that you'd defend these types of people.

IN no way is she defending child molesters. No one defends child molesters unless they are lawyers.

Argus · September 11, 2012

Fantasizing can also become a problem, because it can lead to acting out the fantasy. What I mean specifically is, child pornography depicted in paintings and displayed in the guise of "art".

So you want to ban fantasizing? What about fantasizing about other criminal activities, which takes places throughout movies, television, and in books and magazines?

There is no evidence that fantasizing about a sexual act leads to acting it out. If it did, there'd be a lot of women out there looking to get raped.

Argus · September 11, 2012

Regardless of cause, this will not deter. Being a pedophile is the worst thing you can be. 3rd would be Serial Killer. 2nd is Serial Rapist. Pedophile is the worst.

So someone who is, beyond their control, acctracted to children, but who never acts on it, is worse than a serial killer?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Argus

Argus · September 11, 2012

I cannot believe you are defending child molesters here. I know you're left wing but I never dreamed that you'd defend these types of people.

How is you have utterly failed to comprehend the difference between a paedophile and a child molester? I mean, it's been the basic point of discussion so far?

By the way, the vast majority of children are not sexually molested by pedophiles. They're molested by drunken or drugged out or thoughtless and stupid older relatives.

Argus · September 11, 2012

By bringing awareness of them to the public in a meaningful way instead of the public having zero knowledge of them loose in our communities preying on our children anonymously.

Zero knowledge? Thanks to media sensationalism every parent seems convinced that any male they meet is likely a pedophile and after their little babies. When I was a kid we wandered around everywhere by ourselves. Now kids don't even get out of their yards without adult supervision till they're in their teens.

Argus · September 11, 2012

I tried to take a subtle jibe at his tendency to label all paedophiles (and likely a wider, surrounding group who wouldn't technically qualify as paedophiles) as "child molesters" when I said "Mr. Canada will take video of those... child molesters (even if they never once molested a child)".

Wait until someone explains to him what a hebephile is... There's tons more of THEM around!

cybercoma · September 12, 2012

Wait until someone explains to him what a hebephile is... There's tons more of THEM around!

Without looking it up, I"m going to go out on a limb and guess that it doesn't mean someone that fantasizes about Jews.

TheNewTeddy · September 12, 2012

So someone who is, beyond their control, acctracted to children, but who never acts on it, is worse than a serial killer?

I'd say so, yes, on a moral level, but only when compared to those who want to be serial killers as opposed to those who act on it.

Some people are just bad people, the way to tell the difference between a bad person and a good person is one who knows when and how to separate their desires from their actions.

A Pedophile, as in the ones being outed, as in the way the word is used in normal discussion (AKA child molesters) is the worst thing you can be.

A Pedophile, as in the medical definition, and dictionary definition, is not.

I know the difference, but use the term in the first sense.

g_bambino · September 12, 2012

I know the difference, but use the term in the first sense.

Perhaps if the word was used properly, there'd be much less confusion. As was pointed out, children are mostly molested by relatives or family friends; many (one would think most) of them aren't paedophiles, those being sexually excited by children; they're just alcoholic, high, and/or abusive, power and control hungry individuals who engage sexually with the one child because he or she is a convenient and powerless outlet. Then there are those who're attracted to teens who're legally children but physically are between adolescence and early adulthood. Such are not paedophiles; hebephiles are turned on by individuals between 11 and 14 years of age, and ephebophiles by people between 15 and 19. (There's a whole and societally acceptable pornographic industry that legally depicts fantastical situations catering to the fantasies of the latter.) Further still are the adults who aren't exclusively or even predominantly sexually aroused by others in such specific stages of development, but do by fate end up in a sexual relationship with one; adult men and women having sex (often consensual) with a "kid" in his or her mid to late teens. They could all be termed as "child molesters" and (entirely subjectively) "bad people", which, according to you and many others, equates with "paedophile". But, doing so is a distortion of reality.

September 12, 2012

I know the difference, but use the term in the first sense.

Why, when you know the difference, would you choose to use the term incorrectly?

Argus · September 13, 2012

A Pedophile, as in the ones being outed, as in the way the word is used in normal discussion (AKA child molesters) is the worst thing you can be.

I disagree. I don't see how you feel that molesting someone, even raping them, equates to murdering them. I realize, of course, that people, particularly children, who are the victim of sexual abuse can carry lifelong trauma, but I'm willing to bet that if you ask most if they'd rather be murdered you'd get very few who would accept that this would have been a preferred fate.

When you molest a child you might very well be taking its innocence. When you murder someone you take everything they have, everything they hoped to be, everything they ever would have done away from them, and you take them away, permanently, from everyone who loved them.

You cannot compare anything to murder, particularly the murder of innocents, who are normally the victims of serial killers.

guyser · September 13, 2012

I disagree. I don't see how you feel that molesting someone, even raping them, equates to murdering them. I realize, of course, that people, particularly children, who are the victim of sexual abuse can carry lifelong trauma, but I'm willing to bet that if you ask most if they'd rather be murdered you'd get very few who would accept that this would have been a preferred fate.

When you molest a child you might very well be taking its innocence. When you murder someone you take everything they have, everything they hoped to be, everything they ever would have done away from them, and you take them away, permanently, from everyone who loved them.

You cannot compare anything to murder, particularly the murder of innocents, who are normally the victims of serial killers.

I dont know Argus.

Some people on earth are scummy and have done things , maybe not illegal but pretty close, perhaps kept one foot one the line while they have gone on to ruin lives and wound up murdered.

Think not one redeeming value in their life.

Measured against some poor child who is robbed of all innocence, robbed of a future life, pretty much being a candidate for the social service office.

In that case, it could be argued it is worse.

But I am more than happy to call them both horrible and not worth the paper to print a sentence on

Argus · September 13, 2012

I dont know Argus.

Some people on earth are scummy and have done things , maybe not illegal but pretty close, perhaps kept one foot one the line while they have gone on to ruin lives and wound up murdered.

Think not one redeeming value in their life.

Measured against some poor child who is robbed of all innocence, robbed of a future life, pretty much being a candidate for the social service office.

In that case, it could be argued it is worse.

But I am more than happy to call them both horrible and not worth the paper to print a sentence on

I'm not saying that some people who get murdered aren't scumbags. Unfortunately, serial killers rarely go after massive fraud artists who enriched themselves by destroying the lives and livelihood of others, or violent criminals. Instead they tend to kill young women, and sometimes young men, who are guilty of nothing in word or deed.

I know women who have been raped. I don't accept that they would have been better off dead. That's an old testament or maybe modern Muslim conceit that values sexual propriety over life. Rape is NOT a fate worse than death.

TheNewTeddy · September 13, 2012

I disagree. I don't see how you feel that molesting someone, even raping them, equates to murdering them. I realize, of course, that people, particularly children, who are the victim of sexual abuse can carry lifelong trauma, but I'm willing to bet that if you ask most if they'd rather be murdered you'd get very few who would accept that this would have been a preferred fate.

When you molest a child you might very well be taking its innocence. When you murder someone you take everything they have, everything they hoped to be, everything they ever would have done away from them, and you take them away, permanently, from everyone who loved them.

You cannot compare anything to murder, particularly the murder of innocents, who are normally the victims of serial killers.

I dont know Argus.

Some people on earth are scummy and have done things , maybe not illegal but pretty close, perhaps kept one foot one the line while they have gone on to ruin lives and wound up murdered.

Think not one redeeming value in their life.

Measured against some poor child who is robbed of all innocence, robbed of a future life, pretty much being a candidate for the social service office.

In that case, it could be argued it is worse.

But I am more than happy to call them both horrible and not worth the paper to print a sentence on

Once you are murdered, you are dead, and stop suffering. There are things worse than death.

As for my use of terms, I use them as I was taught to use them.

Argus · September 14, 2012

Once you are murdered, you are dead, and stop suffering. There are things worse than death.

Just because you were molested once that does not mean you are in a state of permanent torment and suffering. :rolleyes:

Black Dog · September 14, 2012

Just because you were molested once that does not mean you are in a state of permanent torment and suffering.

Agreed, I think the notion that survivors of sexual abuse or assault are somehow irrevocably damaged does them a great disservice. It's the same line of reasoning anti-abortion types use when they talk about the psychological damage of abortion. We need to recognize there is a range of experiences and that not everyone who was once victimized wants to spend their whole lives as a victim

guyser · September 14, 2012

I'm not saying that some people who get murdered aren't scumbags. Unfortunately, serial killers rarely go after massive fraud artists who enriched themselves by destroying the lives and livelihood of others, or violent criminals. Instead they tend to kill young women, and sometimes young men, who are guilty of nothing in word or deed.

Fair enough. I suppose I was making a generalization based on select criteria.