Computer-generated 'Sweetie' catches online predators

Garson007 said:
I'm also defensive of the vilification of other conditions. You know me well enough, to know that I don't only defend paedophiles.
Click to expand...

Sorry, have only ever seen you defending pedos on this forum.
Hence, the question.
 
Ninja'd said:
Must've been one hell of a realistic CG model to get loads of pervs to offer their services.
Click to expand...

I would love to test the intelligence. Everything I have seen so far makes a mistake after 3 or 4 questions. I suppose it could be easier to create CG child responses as people wouldn't expect adult/intelligent answers I guess.
 
XennoX said:
[sup]1[/sup] I must clarify before people jump down my throat about what I mean here. By mentioning the GLB communities I do not imply that it is a condition that they need help for but a lot of people deem it socially unacceptable and thus the GLB communities will be subject to prejudice.
Click to expand...

good save :p just now you get Ockie on you :D
 
porchrat said:
I'm not judging them because they have a condition, I'm judging them because they prowl the Internet getting little kids to take their clothes off.

The prior is a condition, the latter is a reprehensible act that the perpetrator needs to take responsibility for.
Click to expand...
Catching people in the act, with no prior acknowledgement of their condition, and generalising that all paedophiles are "predators" does nothing but vilify those that have the condition. It's really ****ing simple.
 
Garyvdh said:
I think you will find it was a question, not an assumption.
Why are YOU making assumptions about me?
Click to expand...

you asked me the exact same question when we had this discussion. hinting at there being something that "we want to tell you" is implying you think we have ulterior motives
 
Garson007 said:
Catching people in the act, with no prior acknowledgement of their condition, and generalising that all paedophiles are "predators" does nothing but vilify those that have the condition. It's really ****ing simple.
Click to expand...
Once again:
"I'm not judging them because they have a condition, I'm judging them because they prowl the Internet getting little kids to take their clothes off."

At no point did I suggest that all paedophiles prowl the Internet. What I said was we shouldn't judge people just for having a condition, but rather if they actually commit an act. It is really ****ing simple.
 
STS said:
you asked me the exact same question when we had this discussion. hinting at there being something that "we want to tell you" is implying you think we have ulterior motives
Click to expand...
Defence of anything against Gary's code automatically makes you guilty by association.
 
Garson007 said:
Catching people in the act, with no prior acknowledgement of their condition, and generalising that all paedophiles are "predators" does nothing but vilify those that have the condition. It's really ****ing simple.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you on the 'condition' except to say that it is easy enough for any average man on the street to fall into this condition, just like alcoholism, drugs and sexual addictions. But where I have a problem is that these are guys who have already displayed a certain criminal behaviour (prowling the internet for kiddie porn and looking for hookups). So I have no problem at all with vilifying these particular candidates. In fact I don't see anybody in this thread vilifying anybody else BUT those candidates.
 
STS said:
you asked me the exact same question when we had this discussion. hinting at there being something that "we want to tell you" is implying you think we have ulterior motives
Click to expand...

Well, do you? We seem to go through this discussion regularly when it comes to paedophiles who have acted upon their condition in a criminal manner.
 
Garyvdh said:
I don't disagree with you on the 'condition' except to say that it is easy enough for any average man on the street to fall into this condition, just like alcoholism, drugs and sexual addictions. But where I have a problem is that these are guys who have already displayed a certain criminal behaviour (prowling the internet for kiddie porn and looking for hookups). So I have no problem at all with vilifying these particular candidates. In fact I don't see anybody in this thread vilifying anybody else BUT those candidates.
Click to expand...

I think differently, i think if you're chatting to a little girl trying to get her to do things, you're already harming another because you're corrupting and using her. Many pedophiles wouldn't want to undress a child and genuinely care about the child's well-being, just that often the people end up at a site meant to go there in the first place
 
Garson007 said:
Catching people in the act, with no prior acknowledgement of their condition, and generalising that all paedophiles are "predators" does nothing but vilify those that have the condition. It's really ****ing simple.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Let them show us where anyone in this thread vilified ALL people who have this 'condition'?
 
Garyvdh said:
Well, do you? We seem to go through this discussion regularly when it comes to paedophiles who have acted upon their condition in a criminal manner.
Click to expand...

i'm not defending criminals, i'm defending innocent pedophiles and suggesting that they seek help and healthy outlets
 
STS said:
I think differently, i think if you're chatting to a little girl trying to get her to do things, you're already harming another because you're corrupting and using her. Many pedophiles wouldn't want to undress a child and genuinely care about the child's well-being, just that often the people end up at a site meant to go there in the first place
Click to expand...

So you agree that the people spoken about in this case ARE in fact displaying criminal behaviour?
 
STS said:
i'm not defending criminals, i'm defending innocent pedophiles and suggesting that they seek help and healthy outlets
Click to expand...

What relevance does that have to this incident though? We are talking about a specific incidence here of criminal behaviour.
 
porchrat said:
Once again:
"I'm not judging them because they have a condition, I'm judging them because they prowl the Internet getting little kids to take their clothes off."

At no point did I suggest that all paedophiles prowl the Internet. What I said was we shouldn't judge people just for having a condition, but rather if they actually commit an act. It is really ****ing simple.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I mistook what you said to be from a non personal point of view.

I'm arguing against the state/media/collective consciousness here, not you personally. You cannot continue to just vilify the act. It does nothing to help people that suffer from the condition. Rather than to try and help the people with these problems, this research study was out to try and vilify those that have the condition. For every one of me that rather would see paedophiles, kleptomaniacs, drug users, rapists, murders etcetera be helped before they commit the act there are a thousand that would rather want to see them hang after the act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X