Paedophiles.

[snakey]

I see news stories about people attacking children and I think, "Where is God? Shouldn't he be protecting us?"

The way famous people and the stories presented are shown makes me think there is more to it.

Could a famous person be approached by a Public Relations company and be asked for the company to present the famous person as having attacked children to raise awareness for the issue. The cases go to court but the famous person has a number printed in their file e.g. case 2341 which means it is only a show case and the person doesn't go to prison.

I know it may seem wrong to make such serious issues appear false but I think it is a good idea: actors get work in front of the camera, issues are raised in public and a husband may get caught out acting funny with theor family when a case is on the news.

 

[snakey]

The same thing could be done with violent criminals or murderers: the news shows a picture of a dead person and change the name. A dead person is used so they don't get lynched or killed on the street. In Young Guns Two Doc reads a newspaper with a picture of Billy The Kid in it and says, "It says Billy but it ain't Billy."

I saw a news report about a snake that escaped from a pet shop below some flats and killed two Brothers. I thought a child could have written a story like that for english class and they made it into a news story.

 

[DaveC426913]

Could a famous person be approached by a Public Relations company and be asked for the company to present the famous person as having attacked children to raise awareness for the issue. The cases go to court but the famous person has a number printed in their file e.g. case 2341 which means it is only a show case and the person doesn't go to prison.

Sure. He'll be pelted with rotten fruit, sent death threats, and run out of his home town on a rail, never to get a job again, but yeah, as long as he doesn't actually go to prison, no harm done, right?

 

[snakey]

When the plane the Enola Gay dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima The United States phoned Japan and told them they were going to do it. That gave Japan time to sound warning sirens and evacuate the city and the police and army should have gone and searched each home to check they were empty then got out theirselves. Visit any hospital and you see sick and injured people. They show these on the news.

Wars are probably the countries' leaders mapping them out: the leaders say to each other things like I invade this land with the army and I send boats to here. The war continues until there is a winner. A war winner should be a brilliant strategist.

 

[Sarkus]

Is there a connection between the posts from the OPer? Or just stream of conciousness?

Could a famous person be approached by a Public Relations company and be asked for the company to present the famous person as having attacked children to raise awareness for the issue.

They could, sure. I mean, it's theoretically possible. It would take someone who is willing to tarnish their name and career beyond the point of recovery, someone who thinks the end-result, the focus, the attention, the story, the cause, is worth their reputation and future vilification.

However, given that there are almost certainly better ways that a celebrity can bring the same focus and attention to the cause without potentially destroying their own reputation, it is unlikely that anyone would be willing (aka stupid enough) to do what you are asking.

One problem with something like paedophilia is that "mud sticks", whether the mud was deliberately thrown and accepted for a cause, or whether genuine: are the population ever really going to get past their being a link between the celebrity and the word "paedophilia", and look at the detail, before making their judgement? Only a brave/foolish person would suggest that that would be the case.

 

[Tiassa]

Is there a connection between the posts from the OPer? Or just stream of conciousness?

A few years ago, the nauseating glimpses coming from leftside socmed researchers showed manpilled chatter about access to female children. It always seems strange when someone comes up with one of these odd hypotheticals. I remember seeing one argument searching for the perfect idyllic context in whicn child pornography should be legal and acceptable, which in turn derived from consideration of some perfect idyllic rape that isn't rape; before that, a major liberal online news site once posted and then retracted the ill-advised article from a would-be harmless pedophile.

No, I don't have any grand thesis on it. Rather, it just feels kind of weird, a proposition that maybe one did it, and there's nothing you can do about it, but we can talk about it as long as we pretend the abuser is performing some sort of public service.

Also apropos, there was the time when some desperate wannabe confessed to killing the little girl but nobody believes him. Of course, there's a second alleged confession from an actual suspect, but even that one is not quite right. This goes beyond mud sticks and foolishness; imagine the poor bastard who confesses to a nonexistent crime because that's just where his head is at. Between the head cases who overstate their own masturbatory fantasies and the head cases who seek attention, this becomes a game show real quick.

 

[James R]

Off topic, but I'm interested...

When the plane the Enola Gay dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima The United States phoned Japan and told them they were going to do it.

Seems unlikely. Got a link to somewhere I can read about that? Who told you that?

 

[James R]

On topic this time...

I see news stories about people attacking children and I think, "Where is God? Shouldn't he be protecting us?"

The way famous people and the stories presented are shown makes me think there is more to it.

More to what? Explain? What are you thinking the "more" might be?

Could a famous person be approached by a Public Relations company and be asked for the company to present the famous person as having attacked children to raise awareness for the issue.

Do you think that people are unaware that pedophiles exist and commit crimes? I'm not clear on what you think needs awareness raising.

Your suggestion that celebrities offer to smear their reputations by pretending to be child abusers strikes me as bizarre and counterproductive, while also distracting from real abusers. Can you explain yourself?

The same thing could be done with violent criminals or murderers: the news shows a picture of a dead person and change the name.

This is even less clear. What is the news showing a picture of a dead person with the wrong name supposed to achieve, exactly? Is it supposed to "raise awareness" that murders and other violent crimes happen? Are people unaware of such things? Do we need to raise awareness further? Why? And if so, why not publicise real murderers and murder victims? Wait! Doesn't that already happen?

I saw a news report about a snake that escaped from a pet shop below some flats and killed two Brothers. I thought a child could have written a story like that for english class and they made it into a news story.

What does this have to do with the pedophiles and murderers you mentioned?

Are you okay?

 

[snakey]

A famous person may agree to muddy their reputation when approached if they are dying i.e. they have a disease.

Perhaps the good they do with their death means more to them-Jimmy Saville may have agreed for the press to write stories about his abuse after his death because he would be dead and could not be touched (excuse the pun) and raising the issue and protecting children meant more to him.

 

[DaveC426913]

A famous person may agree to muddy their reputation when approached if they are dying i.e. they have a disease.

Perhaps the good they do with their death means more to them-Jimmy Saville may have agreed for the press to write stories about his abuse after his death because he would be dead and could not be touched (excuse the pun) and raising the issue and protecting children meant more to him.

Are you supposing that all the allegations made against him by his many victims during his life and after his death were just made up lies?

What's next? Holocaust survivors made up their stories to end WWII?

 

[exchemist]

A famous person may agree to muddy their reputation when approached if they are dying i.e. they have a disease.

Perhaps the good they do with their death means more to them-Jimmy Saville may have agreed for the press to write stories about his abuse after his death because he would be dead and could not be touched (excuse the pun) and raising the issue and protecting children meant more to him.

In my experience, as people approach the end of their lives they are more keen than ever that they will remembered positively. I have never heard of anyone who agreed to have his or her reputation posthumously trashed, to serve some purpose, however noble.

But Dave's point is the more powerful one: these weren't just "stories" about Saville. There were lots of real victims. Of real abuse.

 

[James R]

Jimmy Saville may have agreed for the press to write stories about his abuse after his death because he would be dead and could not be touched (excuse the pun) and raising the issue and protecting children meant more to him.

This attempt to make excuses for Jimmy Saville is unsupported by any evidence and would be deeply offensive to his victims and their relatives/friends/associates.

Moderator note: snakey has been warned for posting inappropriate content. We will not tolerate people who try to make excuses for pedophiles or to defend pedophilia. A repeat of this behaviour might result in an immediate permanent ban from sciforums.

 

[James R]

This thread is closed.