Former U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

[User]

51 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, I started this thread to discuss Mr. Ritter's life. You're the one who seems to have the need to engage in personal attacks on him.

Yes, to completely downplay his convictions and proceed to go on about how it is a tragedy. 

It is not a personal attack to point out the disgusting behavior he engaged in and was found guilty of. 

[Videospirit]

I'm just going to say if someone claimed they were underage, and he assumed they were lying about it without making any efforts to confirm that, not even a comment like "Oh, age roleplay?", he deserved to be convicted of sex crimes.

I mean, that's disturbing even if he did confirm it was just roleplay. Not doing so means he enjoyed "pretending that they were underage." at the very least.

At best, he's a pedophile who "tries to find legal ways to vent his urges." but doesn't do the due diligence to ensure he's not actually interacting with minors.

Edited February 20, 2025 by Videospirit

[Scott75]

On 2/11/2025 at 9:05 AM, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 8:30 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/8/2025 at 7:39 PM, User said:

On 2/8/2025 at 6:33 PM, Scott75 said:

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

There is no tragedy here.

How would you know? Did you even read the article that you snipped out of my quote? For the audience, here is the linked article:

I am familiar enough with this to know [snip]

You didn't answer my question. Did you, or did you not, read the article I referenced?

Edited March 13, 2025 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 2/11/2025 at 9:08 AM, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 8:15 AM, Scott75 said:

No, I started this thread to discuss Mr. Ritter's life. You're the one who seems to have the need to engage in personal attacks on him.

Yes, to completely downplay his convictions and proceed to go on about how it is a tragedy.

I doubt Mr. Ritter should ever have had to serve time, considering the fact that there's a good case that he was entrapped. Again, I ask you to take a look at the article that you'll probably never read that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter is hardly the first to have dirty tactics used to entrap him. It's here:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

 

[Scott75]

On 2/19/2025 at 10:58 PM, Videospirit said:

I'm just going to say if someone claimed they were underage, and he assumed they were lying about it without making any efforts to confirm that, not even a comment like "Oh, age roleplay?", he deserved to be convicted of sex crimes.

Mr. Ritter did say "I don't want any trouble" and the alleged minor (who was in fact an adult under cover officer) said they were 24 on their profile, as Mr. Ritter's lawyer pointed out. Mr. Ritter is hardly the only man who has been charged by cops looking to score an arrest and perhaps some cash. A good article from the New York Times on this:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

[User]

13 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

You didn't answer my question. Did you, or did you not, read the article I referenced?

If this article has a particular point, quote that sentence and make your argument. 

9 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I doubt Mr. Ritter should ever have had to serve time, considering the fact that there's a good case that he was entrapped. Again, I ask you to take a look at the article that you'll probably never read that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter is hardly the first to have dirty tactics used to entrap him. It's here:

If this article has a particular point, quote that sentence and make your argument. 

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, User said:

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/11/2025 at 9:05 AM, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 8:30 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/8/2025 at 7:39 PM, User said:

On 2/8/2025 at 6:33 PM, Scott75 said:

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

There is no tragedy here.

How would you know? Did you even read the article that you snipped out of my quote? For the audience, here is the linked article:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

I am familiar enough with this to know [snip]

You didn't answer my question. Did you, or did you not, read the article I referenced?

If this article has a particular point, quote that sentence and make your argument. 

It'd be easier for me to simply assume that you haven't read the New York Times article that linked to multipe times in the nested quotes above then try to get you to actually answer my question, but I don't like making assumptions. The reason I wanted to know if you'd read the article stems from a statement you made back in post #147. You had been responding to my post #143, wherein I had stated:

**

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

**

You responded to my statement above with "There is no tragedy here". I was curious as to how you would know if there was a tragedy or not, especially since I suspected you had never read the article. But perhaps I am mistaken and you -have- read the article. Let's assume that you have indeed read the article. Surely, you should be able to explain why you disagree with my assessment on the tragedy of the convictions that the article references?

Edited March 14, 2025 by Scott75

[User]

32 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Surely, you should be able to explain why you disagree with my assessment on the tragedy of the convictions that the article references?

There is no tragedy here - e.g., with Scott Ritter's conviction. 

 

[Scott75]

41 minutes ago, User said:

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

Surely, you should be able to explain why you disagree with my assessment on the tragedy of the convictions that the article references?

There is no tragedy here - e.g., with Scott Ritter's conviction. 

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.