Your accusation of vague references is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. . . . .good luck


Haha. . .is the word of the week Agitation? You patrolling the off topic section calling people agitators in different threads? Or are you just agitated by agitators that you can't think of a sound argument?
Where you say agitators and stirring the pot I would refute fact check and wanting proof.

Same agitator in both places.

I'm still awaiting your reply in the other thread. If there's something you've failed to understand I'd be happy to explain it to you again. Lets stick to the topic rather than going after me personally.

JD, dude, you don't even have a kid so any opinion you have is not applicable. While it's fine to opine you do not have a clue what you would feel or do until you have responsibility of the life and welfare of a little one.

My job as a parent is to take care of those in my family. Period.
My role as a conscientious normal adult is different. If I saw something not right (man pulling kid by arm into van for example) I would immediately report it to the authorities.
I won't go looking for trouble. If trouble finds me or my family I will do anything to help. If I see trouble in other cases I report it.

How's that for exactly how I feel.

You always find ways to disqualify my opinion based on something personal, rather than address it. Ad hominem.

That WAS a good articulation of how you feel. The only thing I would second guess is your statement that if you saw a man pulling a kid by the arm into a van you would report it to authorities. In my mind it may be too late by the time the authorities respond. Also, you dont address the reality that not all children are going to have great parents. It's all well and good to say that parents need to do a better job, and I agree, but its not a realistic solution.


Just to clearly clarify my own position on this; I don't find it easy to take either side. I see problems with both positions. I created this thread after seeing hundreds and hundreds of local people supporting this idea and very few opposed. I thought it was interesting as I personally tend to lean towards agreeing with the majority of you on this forum.

As someone who can see the issues with either position I have been forced, in this forum, to argue for one side more than the other, but as I've said I find it hard to take a clear stance on either side because I AGREE with a lot of what has been said against it. BUT I do see several problems with that position that haven't really been addressed.

-Parents will never be perfect, therefore there will always be kids with the potential to be victims of these predators.
-Reactive rather than proactive will lead to more kids being victimized before something is done.
-In my mind its important to quantify risk, and in my opinion, the likelihood that a 'free' pedophile will eventually abuse a child is greater than the likelihood that a confronted pedophile will cause harm to the public as a result of said confrontation. There is risk in confronting them, I agree. But there is also risk in having these pedophiles unidentified walking the streets looking for victims, right?

i am not responsible for the unfortunate children of bad parents. i am responsible for my kids. you seem to have this idea that because someone will defend/protect their kids, they somehow should extend the same actions to others. sorry, doesn't work that way. too much litigation, too many bad outcomes.


however, based on your strident feelings about child safety, sounds like you should be volunteering at big brother type places, or perhaps study law to become a champion of unfortunate children throughout canada to help protect them.

wally

Now it's not my job to read back to you what you wrote, and my response. If you can't handle a discussion and take a rebuttal and have a linear response that is not my fault.

No failure of understanding here, but your consistent conjecture of an argument makes it hard to have a logical discussion.
Nothing personal, when you try to state that your personal opinion trumps others, without any proof? You going from thread to thread with the same dead end response. . ."so and so is an agitator" is exactly on topic as you are not actually making a sound contribution, but what some would say is. . . "agitating".

At no point have a said that anyone has to do anything. I was asking for opinions. If you are of the opinion that you would not step in to help someone else's child, that is fine.


Strident feelings? If not wanting children to be sexually abused is strident feelings then I guess you've got me. I'm guilty of being opposed to child molestation.





Hmmm, not even sure where to begin with this non-sense. My personal opinion trumps that of others?? Nope. never said or even inferred such a thing. In fact I've stated many times that I agree on a lot of points.

I asked you to state your question because I clearly didnt understand what you were talking about. A simple and quick way to avoid unnecessary nonsense like what this has devolved into thanks to your needless obstinance. I did go back and see a question from you, but I also saw it answered in the posts that followed. Perhaps if you go back and re-read yourself you will find the answer? OR you could just ask me to clarify like a rational person and I would be happy to clear up the misunderstanding. Crazy logic, right?

Agitator? I've said it twice. Both times today. Lets not be dramatic.

Anyone want a Canadian beer? This thread went to the crapper....lol.

Interesting development

Vigilante group snares BC Interior sheriff | CFJC Today

The true knowledge of CreepCatchers:

I hear often that law enforcement is fighting an uphill battle with predators like this because they don't have the manpower to fight it. I don't agree with the in-person confrontations, but I don't see any issues with people posting the info of them online.

An Army buddy of mine went directly from the military to the FBI's human trafficking/violent crimes against children (VCAC) unit ~2010.

He lasted 6 months before it broke him emotionally.

He doesn't have any PTS from all of the gnarly stuff he experienced in the Army across multiple deployments, TBI, a purple heart, etc... but 6 months having to deal day in and day out with human trafficking and violent crimes against children gives him nightmares to this day.

That (retention) could also be a contributing factor as to why they're low on manpower, aside from budgeting. Personally, I wouldn't have even lasted 6 months.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what that would do to me.