Gardai cricitise paedophile hunters

pjohnson wrote: »

They want to be Batman its their childhood dream.

Wait, are we talking about the vigilantes or the targets now? Come to think of it it's uncanny how similar they are in several respects, except one is a lot more aggressive.

walshb wrote:

And you can bet most of this mob don’t even understand what an actual paedophile is.

You mean that they are filthy, despicable human beings who prey on young innocent children?
I think they would be aware of that.

walshb wrote: »

Excellent point here.

And it beggars belief that there are folks pushing for and defending a mob mentality dishing out mob justice..

And you can bet most of this mob don’t even understand what an actual paedophile is.

That's why this should be left to the Gardai and them alone. A bunch of yobs looking to dish out some vigilante justice (and probably with ulterior / sinister motives) are the last people in the country you'd want to be upholding the law.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Kinda proving the other poster's point there a bit...

The statement was: what a pedophile actually is, not what your ranting opinion was.

Actually we all know what a pedophile is. Let's not have this new age nonsense where people are claiming "being a pedophile doesn't mean you're actually trying to harm someone lol".

That's just semantics and is a distraction to the issue at hand. Quit the bull**** and concentrate on the real discussion.

paleoperson wrote: »

Actually we all know what a pedophile is. Let's not have this new age nonsense where people are claiming "being a pedophile doesn't mean you're actually trying to harm someone lol".

That's just semantics and is a distraction to the issue at hand. Quit the bull**** and concentrate on the real discussion.

Proving the point again.

Walsh, can you quit your pedantic rubbish.

We are clearly talking about paedophiles who are breaking the law here.
Do we have to spell it out for you?

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that we are talking about active paedophiles.

Again, proving the point.

As paleoperson said, you have to have the case in context first.

For example: pedophile A - turns out to be a 19-year old mentally challenged boy who has no understandign of the law or that he is even doing something wrong.
Pedophile B - turns out to be a 50-year old university graduate who already has a conviction and knows exactly what he is doing.
Same approach? Same consequences?

When we say "what a pedophile is" we mean things like: how does a pedophile think? What causes pedophilia? Why do some pedophiles abuse and some don't?

Sure, you can look the word up in a dictionary and say you understand the definition - which I'm sure you do - but THIS is what you need to onderstand before you can say you know who pedophiles are.

And if your feelings are that you don't care - and that's totally fine - then you're admitting you don't know. But I'd argue that you should really care and know if you want to solve the problem and really make children safe.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, proving the point.

As paleoperson said, you have to have the case in context first.

For example: pedophile A - turns out to be a 19-year old mentally challenged boy who has no understandign of the law or that he is even doing something wrong.
Pedophile B - turns out to be a 50-year old university graduate who already has a conviction and knows exactly what he is doing.
Same approach? Same consequences?

When we say "what a pedophile is" we mean things like: how does a pedophile think? What causes pedophilia? Why do some pedophiles abuse and some don't?

Sure, you can look the word up in a dictionary and say you understand the definition - which I'm sure you do - but THIS is what you need to onderstand before you can say you know who pedophiles are.

And if your feelings are that you don't care - and that's totally fine - then you're admitting you don't know. But I'd argue that you should really care and know if you want to solve the problem and really make children safe.

Same approach.
It doesn't matter what the mentality of the criminal is , the trauma suffered by the child is the same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There IS no child, remember?

So it's the first time for all of them, yeah?
Riiight.


Is that chris hansen at my door?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Don't know what you're trying to say: every active pedophile committed a first offence at some point...? How do you know it's not the first offence for these guys? Or how do the vigilantes know?

It is statistically unlikely that someone from a population of folks who seek out a child on the internet and travel to the meetup location , is doing it for the first time. And even less likely that a majority of the population defined above meet the criteria.


Therefore the hypothesis must be that it is most likely not the first time for most people and that therefore a child(ren) have been harmed before.

pjohnson wrote: »

Theres been cases were these gangs have gone after paedeatricians instead of paedophiles.

The Batman gangs clearly dont know what a paedophile is. They probably struggle with any word over 6 letters tbh. So yeah probably not best to bring intelligence into it.

There is something to what you're saying, but that just makes it all the more futile to try to come along and say "a pedophile is actually this".

There is no good word that encapsulates a pedophile who is attempting to be active which is what they're talking about here. While I am totally against these gangs, I'm not going to get on board of trying to dismiss the language those people use. The way they're using the word is perfectly useful for what they mean.

Let's tackle the real issue instead of bringing up semantics. Words are not what the dictionary defines them as, they're what the people who use them think they are.

ELM327 wrote: »

It is statistically unlikely that someone from a population of folks who seek out a child on the internet and travel to the meetup location , is doing it for the first time. And even less likely that a majority of the population defined above meet the criteria.


Therefore the hypothesis must be that it is most likely not the first time for most people and that therefore a child(ren) have been harmed before.

Statistically, eh? Then you can go ahead and provide the statistics, of course (and DON'T tell me to "Google it" - that crap just admits that you're lying)

Nor does it stand against the first hypothetical case I suggested earlier.

ELM327 wrote: »

Statistically unlikely was my hypothesis.

Since you made a claim I shall refer to your empirical evidence which you provided... oh wait,


I guess it's just easier to believe that everyone is on their first offence. Put your head in the sand and your children in harms way. Great.

so what statistics is your hypothesis based on? Because if the answer is "none" then you are just pulling things out of your arse

ELM327 wrote: »

If you knew anything about hypotheses you'd know it's not based on empirical evidence.


What reason have you to pull out of your arse to believe it's every pedos first time when they are caught!!

I know what a hypothesis is, thanks. and it needs to have at least some evidence before you can make it. Otherwise it is just literally pulling things from your arse.

ELM327 wrote: »

Statistically unlikely was my hypothesis.

Then it's not statistical and you can't prove it. A hypothetisis is an idea awaiting reserarch.

Since you made a claim I shall refer to your empirical evidence which you provided... oh wait,


I guess it's just easier to believe that everyone is on their first offence. Put your head in the sand and your children in harms way. Great.

Someone else's post...? Nothing to do with anything I posted.