Police Publish 'An Introduction To PEDO BEAR'

According to this article, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department knows that Pedobear is an Internet joke, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to warn the public about him. Their most recent tool in the fight against internet memes is this public safety information bulletin entitled: "An Introduction to PEDO BEAR." I look forward to the bulletin warning parents about the dangers of children playing in Chocolate Rain.

Comments

Forget chocolate rain

[suso]

Check out the dangers of playing in sprinklers.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[gweihir]

Check out the dangers of playing in sprinklers.

How uneducated can you get?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the dangers of playing in sprinklers.

How uneducated can you get?

Bend over and I'll show you.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[geekoid]

The dangers of not having a good science education program.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[jythie]

Wow. I had not thought about that crazy lady in years......

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Moryath]

Given that no cop in the USA is non-corrupt any more? This is completely expected.

I'm actually surprised they didn't beat the poor guy in the costume up, just for the fun of it.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

That's clearly a joke. It has to be. It's just a simple parody.

...right?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Jawnn]

Check out the dangers of playing in sprinklers.

How uneducated can you get?

Very, but they still get to vote. Three guesses as to which way "they" lean.
Seriously, I want to laugh (and I do) but this (TFA and the sprinkler idiot) is troubling. Not just because these cops are stupid, but because it reflects a general failure of critical thinking across our society. The intellectual capacity required for a reasonable skepticism seems to be escaping a larger and larger swath of the populace, a swath which apparently now takes in those in important public safety roles. We're doomed.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[digsbo]

The intellectual capacity required for a reasonable skepticism seems to be escaping a larger and larger swath of the populace

It seems this way, but if you look at history it's really just that more of the population has the ability to communicate to a large audience. Modern communications haven't resulted in better quality of information--it's just made communication cheaper and more accessible.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I don't know how to respond to such stupidity :|

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[spun]

I'll bite. Which way do cops lean? IMHO they lean towards "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." This only looks right wing because their interests coincide with those of the right wing when it comes to "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." Are cops for a balanced budget? Not if it means cuts for them. Are they for states rights? Not hardly! They are for cops' rights, they don't really care if they get them from the fed or the state. Socially, they may be somewhat conservative, especially when it comes to punishing criminals (of course.) And how do cops feel about unions? Great! As long as it is their union. Your union is useful as a cop employment program, you and or the boss need protection from each other, right? Overtime, baby!

A lot of what looks like partisan politics on bothy sides is actually lazy, selfish politics and people only tend to agree with party planks that directly benefit them.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad is a cop, and he's not corrupt at all.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Cyberllama]

I think you'll find that stupid people don't lean towards any specific political affiliation.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's less about that and more about paranoid schizophrenia.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Draconius42]

So is mine, as well as my older brother, and neither of them are corrupt. -1 Troll? Sorry to break up your hate party with the truth.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[RaymondKurzweil]

Very, but they still get to vote. Three guesses as to which way "they" lean.

Well considering the originator of the video has/had a confirmed presence on greenpeace. I guess that is not too difficult.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[SoVeryTired]

I wish it weren't so, but when you involve most people's kids in a story, all critical or rational thought goes out the window. That's just the way things are.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he means the sprinkler crazies, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[The End Of Days]

No!! The only possible intelligent choice is to lean left hard. Anyone who doesn't agree must be stupid, because if they weren't stupid, they'd agree!

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[gweihir]

The intellectual capacity required for a reasonable skepticism seems to be escaping a larger and larger swath of the populace

It seems this way, but if you look at history it's really just that more of the population has the ability to communicate to a large audience. Modern communications haven't resulted in better quality of information--it's just made communication cheaper and more accessible.

And everybody gets a say, without any quality control. I think you have it exactly right.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Jawnn]

I did, and he did, but I'll take the blame for not making it clear. It felt awkward as I wrote it. As for labeling cops as "right" or "left", I would never do that. I am retired from an emergency services career that spanned three decades, so I know enough cops to know that they come in all different political stripes, just like the general public. Of course, just like with the general public, it's the dimmer ones that lack the "intellectual capacity required for a reasonable skepticism".

Then again, digsbo has a point. The same dumb-ass "I heard..." hysterical crap was going on thirty five years ago. Then it was, "I heard from (always some cousin who new a cop somewhere) that drug pushers are putting LSD on pictures of Mickey Mouse so they can get the kids hooked on dope..." The 1975 equivalent of the drooling ditto-head was photocopying the chain letters and sending them on to all their friends and relatives, posting them on the bulletin board at work, etc. Maybe the higher profile that the Internet affords these idiots just makes it seem like their are more of them, but as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats, so the smart people should be more visible too, but the dimwits just seem to be more buoyant, ya know?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[AK Marc]

I thought there was a correlation between education and liberalism. But that's dismissed by the conservatives by their anti-intellectualism bias and the claims that formal education is liberal indoctrination.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

Have they ever enforced a drug law? Completely fucking corrupt.

You're an idiot. The police should not selectively enforce the law. In fact, the obvious way of being a corrupt policeman is to selectively enforce the law.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[mldi]

Liberalism and conservatism isn't associated with Democrat and Republican (actual political parties), or with whether or not you might be religious. You can be a conservative atheist Democrat, or a liberal Republican religious nut, or any combination thereof. There are plenty of all types who are misrepresented through politics and stereotypes. Remember: loud idiots who get televised don't represent anybody except themselves.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[bertoelcon]

Very, but they still get to vote. Three guesses as to which way "they" lean.

You only need three ways left, right, and neither.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

"Three guesses as to which way "they" lean. "

I'm going to say liberal, since cops belong to a union and hate hard work.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they're just following orders... like the Nazis.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[kdemetter]

Cops are people . People have different views on society and politics.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[scotty.m]

Can you be this uneducated? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
Oh wait.. he's a congressman.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Hatta]

Are cops for a balanced budget? Not if it means cuts for them.

Neither is the right wing, if it means cuts for cops. Have any of the supposed deficit hawks in the tea party proposed any cuts to law enforcement?

Are they for states rights? Not hardly!

Neither is the right wing. Consider how Bush's DEA responded when California legalized medical marijuana.

And how do cops feel about unions? Great! As long as it is their union.

I think you'll find that the right wing is very much in favor of police unions too.

In fact, for every point you brought up the predicted position of a self-interested police officer is consistent with that of the right wing.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

No, but if they don't fully support the law they shouldn't become cops.

If they support, or enforce, criminalizing victimless actions, they're corrupt. It doesn't matter if they're doing it as part of a larger package deal.

Also, police do have jurisdiction to decide who to arrest - and it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others. Similarly, the prosecutor can choose to charge every crime with the effort of a murder trial, or to drop all cases that didn't result in victims or create unsafe conditions.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Pooklord]

  and the sprinkler idiot) is troubling. Not just because these cops are stupid, but because it reflects a general failure of critical thinking across our society.

Drawing such a broad conclusion from two anecdotes reflects a failure in your critical thinking.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[spun]

I was trying to be nice. But mostly I wanted to defuse Jawnn's right wing retarded prejudices by refocusing the thread away from "Those idiot minorities and why do they get to vote? I bet they are LIBERALS!!1!"

Of course cops are conservative. If they weren't before they joined, being a cop and seeing the worst of humanity day after day will give anyone the kind of cynical, selfish attitude that is so prevalent in the right wing.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, someone was dumb on the internet our society is falling apart!

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[AK Marc]

I never mentioned political parties. I also didn't define whether I was using the classical definition (as you are using) or the modern one (where "liberal" = "Democrat" and "conservative" = "Republican"). All that was left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[mldi]

Based on modern stereotypes and quips made by the two parties, the implication seemed to be made. So, I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.

Still, a false stereotype was made in your post (somehow conservatism = lack of education?), and that was the greater point of my own post.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Consider that America is being run by people who think you can tax the population, pump in through a bureaucracy of over paid government workers, pay overpaid highway "workers" (who no one ever witnesses working), and that will rejuvenate the economy. What else do you expect?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise! You just described how the vast majority of Republicans feel on issues. If it doesn't benefit them and them alone, they don't want it!

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[flydpnkrtn]

My respect for humanity just ratcheted down a few notches. Wow... how can a person be so incredibly stupid?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[repapetilto]

dudes got hep c. If he doesnt really carefully watch what he eats and drinks ammonia builds up in his brain and slows it down. I'd imagine its like being really really hungover. That said I'm not sure he should be making decisions for people. Then again most decisions seem to be made to just follow the money anyway so maybe noone is worse off for it. Anyway it has nothing to do with education or race.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

No, but if they don't fully support the law they shouldn't become cops.

That is absurd and naive. No man fully supports every law, so you are essentially arguing that there should be no policemen.

A policeman's job is to uphold the law, not to uphold his road paved with good intentions.

Also, police do have jurisdiction to decide who to arrest

For example, you don't stop to arrest a graffiti artist when you're chasing a suspected murderer.

and it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others.

Sorry, what? Is this from your utopic manual of how you want government to work, where policemen have the job of judging the thoughts ("believe will go on to...") of potential criminals?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Falconhell]

Police are continously selectively enforcing the law. Everry time any cop doesnt book a litter bug or a illegally parked car they are using their discretion. Personally I would like the police to concentrate on protecting people from violence and theft not enforcing pot laws for example.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[AK Marc]

Still, a false stereotype was made in your post (somehow conservatism = lack of education?), and that was the greater point of my own post.

Ah, if I'd known that, I'd have addressed that one point. My understanding is that there have been a number of studies on this, and that there is a clear pattern where those who have less education are more likely to self-identify as conservative, and those who self-identify as conservative have, on average, less education. Just because it is a stereotype doesn't indicate it's a false one. Additionally, there's no known link I know of for "intelligence" (whether that's because it doesn't exist or because it's not be tested, I couldn't say). But for education levels, I have read there is a correlation. I have no citation. All those I am finding at the moment all seem to equate the parties with the philosophies they are linked with. The best I found was that "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week." (March 2005)

And the question when asked about political affiliation, especially in exit polls, doesn't necessarily agree with that, but again, it's back to your point about the philosophies not equating with the parties.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[AnObfuscator]

Check out the dangers of playing in sprinklers.

How uneducated can you get?

Very, but they still get to vote. Three guesses as to which way "they" lean.

Hmmm.... I'm guessing the opposite of the way you lean?

Seriously, I want to laugh (and I do) but this (TFA and the sprinkler idiot) is troubling. Not just because these cops are stupid, but because it reflects a general failure of critical thinking across our society. The intellectual capacity required for a reasonable skepticism seems to be escaping a larger and larger swath of the populace, a swath which apparently now takes in those in important public safety roles. We're doomed.

Have you read up on some history recently? Witch burnings. Inquisitions. Holy wars. Mccarthyism. Geocentrism. Racism. Slavery. Feudalism. These aren't exactly a new phenomenon. To be honest, we're probably better off now than we've ever been before, and we've made it this far. I'm not terribly worried.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Mr. Slippery]

The police should not selectively enforce the law.

So, they should just follow orders, then?

Separation of powers has a purpose. If a law is unconstitutional or unethical, police have a duty not to enforce it.

There's a difference between selectively enforcing law X but not law Y, on the basis that law Y is not conducive to the welfare and security of the people, and enforcing law X against person A and not against person B, on the basis that person A is some random schmuck while person B is rich and powerful.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

So, they should just follow orders [wikipedia.org], then?

The Nuremberg defence cannot be used to excuse mass killing of Jews etc. It is, as far as I can tell, still considered perfectly acceptable by international legal standards for different countries to otherwise have different laws and my learnings inform me that "the majority of Slashdot readers disapprove" does not come under the enumeration of "crimes against humanity".

Separation of powers has a purpose.

A purpose which you are defeating when one branch decides it has the "ethical" authority to override another branch. If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.

on the basis that law Y is not conducive to the welfare and security of the people

And who gets to choose what is conducive to the welfare and security of the people? And may someone, for any particular law, be more equal than others?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[Mr. Slippery]

The Nuremberg defence cannot be used to excuse mass killing of Jews etc. It is, as far as I can tell, still considered perfectly acceptable by international legal standards for different countries to otherwise have different laws...

No one has mentioned or complained about different countries having different laws. The issue here is unethical laws.

If the Nuremberg defense is not valid for mass killings, why do you think it valid for other sorts of persecution and human rights violations?

If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.

If the guy with the blue uniform is pointing a gun at you at the direction of a legislator, for an act that is none of the legislator nor the unformed thug's business, you are irrational -- probably out of fear -- if you do not hold the unformed thug responsible for his actions.

And who gets to choose what is conducive to the welfare and security of the people?

Every individual human being must decide whether their behavior is conducive to the welfare and security of others. No one can buck that responsibility by looking to legislators, priests, superior officers in a chain of command, or what the neighbors think. Anything less is simply a variation of "I was only following orders".

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

If the Nuremberg defense is not valid for mass killings, why do you think it valid for other sorts of persecution and human rights violations?

Because "crime against humanity" is not synonymous with whatever your version of "persecution and human rights violation" is. Systematic disappearance, torture, sexual slavery, apartheid, etc. by government are agreed-upon examples of crimes against humanity. Not following some sophomoric libertarian principle is not considered a crime against humanity by any government or by any majority in any country.

It goes without saying, for example, that marijuana should be legal for personal use - although there are far better arguments than a libertarian one - but making it illegal is not a "crime against humanity". Nor was prohibition.

you are irrational -- probably out of fear -- if you do not hold the unformed thug responsible for his actions.

I hold him responsible for his actions, i.e. the action of upholding the law, but I don't hold it against him that he enforces a stupid law which you as a citizen share your responsibility for. He is playing an appropriate role in government by rule of law rather than of men.

No one can buck that responsibility by looking to legislators, priests, superior officers in a chain of command, or what the neighbors think.

Perhaps you just feel guilty because you know that the ultimate responsibility lies with you, the lazy voter.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

That is absurd and naive. No man fully supports every law, so you are essentially arguing that there should be no policemen.

I'm not the one who let it get this way, but yes, if it is so warty that nobody in good conscience can support it then nobody should be enforcing it. Like jury nullification, a check against abuses. We should be paying attention to this as we add laws, and to retire obsolete ones.

But yes, I will absolutely say that nobody should support, enforce, or let be enforced, a law they believe to be unjust.

Sorry, what? Is this from your utopic manual of how you want government to work

No, the Canadian criminal code.

Arrest without warrant by peace officer
495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant
(a-c) [everyone]

Limitation
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(a-c) [most anything]
in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

where policemen have the job of judging the thoughts ("believe will go on to...") of potential criminals?

Look at the phrase "no reasonable grounds to believe". It is the police's job to judge the intent of people, based on the circumstances and experience, where possible.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

You are not reading your own posting.

Firstly, your whole post only applies to arrest without warrant.

Secondly, the primary grounds for arrest is suspicion of a sufficiently serious offence. Section 469 offences are unlikely to get bail, let alone escape arrest. Your "[most anything]" does not apply to straight indictable offences.

Thirdly, the policeman must take into account far more than just a suspicion that another crime will occur. He must consider whether the process of law will take place (identification, not skipping Court, etc.).

Fourthly, where a policemen can make a decision, it is not his job to "judge" beyond establishing whether there is reasonable suspicion.

tl;dr "It's supposed to be [arrest of] only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others," is patent nonsense.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

only applies to arrest without warrant.

Of course, a warrant is an order for someone's arrest. I'm talking about when that officer wasn't told to arrest someone specifically. Just people they encounter in their job who don't need to be held in jail to compel their appearance.

[...] where a policemen can make a decision, it is not his job to "judge" [...]

Pointless semantics. A police officer "judges" if he has room to merge into traffic.

the primary grounds for arrest is suspicion of a sufficiently serious offence. [...]Your "[most anything]" does not apply to straight indictable offences.

It's their call on arresting someone for the vast majority of cases handled, if not sections of the criminal code. Most people are adequately handled administratively.

the policeman must take into account far more than just a suspicion that another crime will occur. He must consider whether the process of law will take place (identification, not skipping Court, etc.).

Yes. My words from the first post weren't intended to be an absolute list of possibilities. Skipping out on court is roughly "harm to others".

Look at it from a financial point of view instead of some weird utopian angle. If the police don't think you're a threat why waste money paying to hold you?

But back to the real issue.

Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust? (Not just factually wrong, like a too-low speed limit, but in a human-rights abuse way.)

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

Pointless semantics. A police officer "judges" if he has room to merge into traffic.

It's not pointless semantics, it's one of the fundamental differences between the job of the police officer and the job of judge and jury. The policeman only has the power to hold you very temporarily, but all he needs is suspicion. Do not equivocate.

Skipping out on court is roughly "harm to others".

Good try. It's also self harm because it's adding to the trouble you are in, right?

If the police don't think you're a threat why waste money paying to hold you?

Meeting someone for the first time and arresting them a few moments later is not sufficient time to decide whether that person is "a threat", or going to go into hiding (perhaps more likely than the threat e.g. for a lethal crime of passion), or going to destroy or fabricate evidence, or whatever. So you start off by basing the rules on the crime he is suspected of committing, then you give leeway based on the merest reasonable suspicion.

Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust?

What exactly do you propose as an alternative? Do you want only police officers who are 100% in agreement with the human rights status of all laws, which would create a worryingly homogenous and passive police force with little desire to feed back its experiences into the other branches of government? Or do you think there should be no police at all until some revolution occurs creating enough people who think exactly like you as far as just laws are concerned?

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

It's not pointless semantics, it's one of the fundamental differences between the job of the police officer and the job of judge and jury. The policeman only has the power to hold you very temporarily, but all he needs is suspicion. Do not equivocate.

Exactly. Pointless semantics. "Judge" means different things in different contexts. A policeman judges traffic safety even if he doesn't preside in judgment at a trial.

Call it deciding though, if it makes you feel better.

Meeting someone for the first time and arresting them a few moments later is not sufficient time to decide whether that person is "a threat", or going to go into hiding (perhaps more likely than the threat e.g. for a lethal crime of passion), or going to destroy or fabricate evidence, or whatever. So you start off by basing the rules on the crime he is suspected of committing, then you give leeway based on the merest reasonable suspicion.

Duh, yeah. For the class of crimes where it's reasonable to let someone go before trial the policeman has leeway in making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.

Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust?

What exactly do you propose as an alternative?

Refusing. And either do a reduced subset of the job (policemen who'd investigate murders but not victimless crimes would still be valuable) or quit.

Are you seriously proposing that they should strap on a gun and go force someone to do something they honestly believe is wrong?

Or do you think there should be no police at all until some revolution occurs creating enough people who think exactly like you as far as just laws are concerned?

I don't think it's a very hard thing. Most of our law comes from the same small set of principles - something is harmful to others and only therefore illegal, you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.

Only some laws go beyond this. Drug-seizure laws in the USA let police seize what might be drug-related property and makes the owner fight to get it back. Obviously "race"-based laws would be unjust.

If you can't think of a law, even hypothetically, that you would and by modern standards should refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.

And I hope you've been well disabused the notion, "it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others."

And either do a reduced subset of the job

So, every policeman does a reduced subset of the job in order to fit with his conscience as to precisely which laws are just. And, under this conscience-based policing, I assume the policeman is also going to adjust his behaviour according to whether he approves of the process of law and sentencing guidelines for each crime. For example, a policeman who thinks that a sex offenders' register is punishing someone who has already done his time would opt out from working on any sex offence cases.

Most of our law comes from the same small set of principles - something is harmful to others and only therefore illegal,

You have a particular philosophy and you are trying to pretend that the law is based on it. Regardless, as your little exercise earlier demonstrated, you have great leeway in determining what is "harmful to others". For example, drinking to excess makes you more likely to make instant irrational judgement/become a burden on a health service (private or public, there are only so many paramedics)/reduce your productive output over time/etc.

you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.

But try becoming a state teacher in England with a sexual abuse charge, even if acquitted. Try entering the United States on the VWP with a simple arrest as part of a gaggle at a demonstration, even if it didn't result in a charge.

refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath

I see you snuck in the "obey" strawman. As for "enforce", you are essentially arguing that all policemen in every country are "dangerous sociopaths".

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.

And I hope you've been well disabused the notion, "it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others."

Wow, no. Do you seriously think you've said anything to that effect?

"Harm to themselves or others" is a reasonable five-word summary of the standard for what police officers use to determine who gets taken into custody and who does not. What other standard do you think is used and do you really think it's much different in intent?

For example, drinking to excess makes you more likely to make instant irrational judgement/become a burden on a health service (private or public, there are only so many paramedics)/reduce your productive output over time/etc.

Yes, when relying on a social welfare network some of your actions can place a burden on others.

When you get around to charging rock climbers for their higher use of hospitals than some more sedentary hobby, but giving them a rebate for the exercise, then it's reasonable to talk about the cost of drugs. But until then it's generally accepted that you have a right to self choice, even if your choices are destructive, or more likely merely appear that way to others.

you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.

But try becoming a state teacher in England with a sexual abuse charge, even if acquitted.

Yes, but innocent until proven guilty is the principle we strive for even if as you point out - the system has flaws.

refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath

I see you snuck in the "obey" strawman. As for "enforce", you are essentially arguing that all policemen in every country are "dangerous sociopaths".

How is it a strawman?

And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[FuckingNickName]

What other standard do you think is used and do you really think it's much different in intent?

You've typed for too long to be a troll, so I think you're just a buffoon. Re-read the whole thread for the list of reasons police officers take people into custody. I'll clarify one final time to help you:

In cases where the police officer is not being instructed to arrest (warrant), where suspicion of a one of a limited number of crimes has occurred, and as one of many reasons, the police officer may choose to arrest a guy because he has reasonable suspicion that the guy is going to commit another crime. Some crimes may be classified (by what appears to be your option of the childish liberterian definition) as "causing harm to others", although many causes of harm to others are not crimes.

Only the most poorly educated or the policitian with an ulterior motive would thus propose your "reasonable five-word summary of the standard". For your case, I expect the former is the genesis of the latter.

But until then it's generally accepted that you have a right to self choice, even if your choices are destructive

No, you accept that. It's not "generally accepted" that you have the right to unrestricted "self choice" at all. Don't use the third person with your opinion to try to project it on the world.

How is it a strawman?

Because no-one's asserted in this argument that every man should obey every law, just that the police should not selectively enforce laws. These are two separate questions which you can't round off by conflating.

And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.

No order? I'm not sure how old you are, but the job of a policeman - or almost any job - isn't to possibly follow a series of politely worded suggestions.

And, if we live in your dystopia where the only people who enforce drugs laws are those who are mindless government servants, we'd be in an even worse situation than we are now. If I smoke a blunt, I want to be arrested by someone who thinks it's absurd that the law wants me arrested, and who feeds back with the loudest voice of first hand experience how much time and resources he wasted on me.

Re:Forget chocolate rain

[WNight]

Only the most poorly educated or the policitian with an ulterior motive would thus propose your "reasonable five-word summary of the standard". For your case, I expect the former is the genesis of the latter.

Do you have a better summary? "If he has reason to suspect you'll re-offend, or flee justice, or harm yourself, ..."

Some crimes may be classified (by what appears to be your option of the childish liberterian definition) as "causing harm to others", although many causes of harm to others are not crimes.

Sure, but the issue isn't wrongs that aren't punished but things that aren't wrongs that are punished. The problem is laws that create victimless crimes.

No, you accept that. It's not "generally accepted" that you have the right to unrestricted "self choice" at all. Don't use the third person with your opinion to try to project it on the world.

Don't try to redefine what I'm talking about and making it look like a minority opinion. Our system of law is ultimately permissive, in that what isn't forbidden is assumed to be permitted.

How is it a strawman?

Because no-one's asserted in this argument that every man should obey every law, just that the police should not selectively enforce laws. These are two separate questions which you can't round off by conflating.

I didn't improperly combine the two - it was an option for you to list either something you'd refuse to enforce, OR to obey.

An example of an order you'd refuse to obey (I'd hope) would be to shoot someone because they're Jewish, but it would likely also serve as an example of something you'd refuse to enforce.

Even if you were correct and I had fallaciously conflated "enforce AND OBEY", it wouldn't be a strawman. That'd be if I presented a weakened version of your argument and attacked it.

And, if we live in your dystopia where the only people who enforce drugs laws are those who are mindless government servants,

Hilarious. No, in MY hypothetical there are no drug laws. Thus we don't need robots to enforce them. It's somewhat less dystopian that you make it out to be.

If I smoke a blunt, I want to be arrested by someone who thinks it's absurd that the law wants me arrested,

Yeah, because to you arrested by a jackbooted thug or arrested by a nice guy are the only two options. You can't consider that because all our nice guys refuse to enforce a law that we might reexamine it and you might not get arrested at all.

and who feeds back with the loudest voice of first hand experience how much time and resources he wasted on me.

Hopefully the effort-bar would be a bit higher for a SWAT team member who was afraid his squad would accidentally kill someone while executing a no-knock warrant.

And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.

No order? I'm not sure how old you are, but the job of a policeman - or almost any job - isn't to possibly follow a series of politely worded suggestions.

Does that even mean anything?

Is there anything they'd refuse to do because of personal values? If not they'd commit atrocities and justify it as following orders. We've decided that even on the field of battle the standards are higher than that.

What about Sexual Harassment Panda!?!

[countSudoku()]

Is he now out of a job? Awww, people don't like Sexual Harassment Panda. That makes Panda sad. :(

Re:What about Sexual Harassment Panda!?!

[MoldySpore]

Sexual Harassment Panda and Pedo Bear would be the ultimate dream team. In defiance of those dumb cops that can't take a joke and don't understand the internet, whoever was in the costume @ 2010 Comic Con, should find a friend and go with Sexual Harassment Panda for 2011.

Re:What about Sexual Harassment Panda!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he now out of a job? Awww, people don't like Sexual Harassment Panda. That makes Panda sad. :(

That makes me a sad Panda. Get it right!

Re:What about Sexual Harassment Panda!?!

[Falconhell]

The true male chauvanist thinks harass is 2 words.

Re:What about Sexual Harassment Panda!?!

[surveyork]

Sexual Harassment Panda seems to have been laid off. Even kids pity him.

really?

[Pojut]

"We know that this is a joke, but we're going to approach it as if it's a serious thing."

Your tax dollars at work, people.

Re:really?

[geekoid]

money well spent.

When parent run into PEDO BEAR for the first time, they should know 2 things.

1) It's pretty much a joke;
2) Pedophile are starting to use it as a tool to gain access and open discussions with minors.

Your arrogance from ignorance it beneath you.

Re:really?

[AnonymousClown]

"We know that this is a joke, but we're going to approach it as if it's a serious thing."

Your tax dollars at work, people.

Yeah, well if you did a survey, I bet most of the people in the area would approve that their Sheriff's department is "doing something" about online child predators. And if the Sheriff in the county is elected, you just know in the next election he's going to have something that states he fought child internet predators.

The electorate is a bunch of morons - I mean morans.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We know that this is a joke, but we're going to approach it as if it's a serious thing."

Jenkem. It's the real shit!

Re:really?

[bistromath007]

Actually, they should only know that it is a joke, because that second part is a pile of crap that the police basically made up so they wouldn't look stupid for kicking PedoBear out of ComicCon.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

ZOMFG!!!!!
Won't someone think of the CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneeleveneleven.

Re:really?

[jythie]

And we have a winner. I am guessing this is exactly what is going on.. .getting a talking point for reelection since any retraction will probably be forgotten.. so instead of looking like an idiot who does not understand a very serious problem, he will get hailed as a diligent working trying to protect children.

Re:really?

[denis-The-menace]

I was at a Costco and the police (i think) had a bear mascot encouraging kids to get fingerprinted in case they get kidnapped.
I told the mascot: "You haven't heard about Pedobear, have you?"
The mascot shook its head no.
I snickered into Costco...

Re:really?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Add to that... a police department of a sizeable city usually has a few cops that temporarily aren't put on active duty (whether it's some kind of formal or informal suspension) because they've had recent problems abusing their authority or other violations that were egregious enough that the chief/sheriff had to do something.

In the case of my local P.D., these cops generally get D.A.R.E. duty or are sent places dressed up as McGruff the crime dog. That's right -- if you're the cop that can't be trusted with the authority of your office, you get to be the one they send to deal with children. That's a great idea.

In the context of that, getting the cops you can't put on duty to warn of the dangers of pedobear doesn't seem that ridiculous, and, as you said, probably is helpful at election time.

Re:really?

[rwa2]

Actually, the Pedobear character had pretty innocuous roots.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pedobear

It wasn't until later that he got perverted into a frequent fark.com meme.

Also, awesome irony if he was originally created as the Safety Bear.

Re:really?

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't get why people try to protect children. Lock the god damn things in a cage or throw them all in the deepest hole you can find, just get them the fuck away from me.

Re:really?

[Chris Burke]

Won't someone think of the CHILDREN !

I'm pretty sure Pedobear has that covered.

Re:really?

[evanism]

I've had a few friends who have been cops, and while being nice guys and girls they can be universally described as totally ignorant to the point of actual stupidity. It always stunned me at how profoundly they misunderstood the simplest things. They could not and would not contextualise anything.

Eveything was either breaking the law (however they chose to define it) or potentially breaking the law.

Needless to say, I have dumped all 5 of them knowing they would end up in trouble, psychotic or corrupt. I was 100% right on every one of them.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are my mod points when I need them?

Re:really?

[rwa2]

Oh, I think it's useful... but in regards to 2) I've only seen pedobear pop up in forums posted by third parties to indicate that interactions between other people are getting that kind of creepy. So in that respect, if you see a lot of pedobears being posted, someone on the channel is acting creepy (not necessarily the guy who is posting the pedobear).

Also, more awareness of memes could at least help avoid situations like this: http://boingboing.net/2010/02/06/pedobear-official-ma.html

Re:really?

[evanism]

Did you escape yours recently?

Re:really?

[Hoi Polloi]

Their next pamphlets will be titled "Warning Parents! Ceiling Kitty Is Watching Your Family Masturbate!" and "Are Your Kids Getting Rickrolled?"

Re:really?

[Sinistar2k]

Also applies to:

Heavy metal
Professional wrestling
Reality TV
Cosplay

Re:really?

[trentblase]

That's all you've seen, but have you been hanging out in REAL pedophile forums? Obviously pedobear started as a joke, but I'll fully admit I have no knowledge of whether the real pedophile community has adopted the image to communicate with each other. If (and its a big if) the police have real (i.e. not hypothetical) knowledge that real pedophiles use the image to communicate with each other, then the warning is appropriate (maybe they have undercovers in pedophile forums?).

I looked at the actual bulletin and it seemed to be a downright reasonable explanation of pedobear, minus the reference to "pedophiles and sexual deviants," which again I can't really dispute because I have no idea what those guys are doing!

Re:really?

[d3ac0n]

I've never had kids. I won't have kids

And we all thank you for voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool.

Re:really?

[interkin3tic]

"We know that this is a joke, but we're going to approach it as if it's a serious thing." Your tax dollars at work, people.

If the money isn't being spent on enforcing drug laws they -don't- realize are jokes, that's probably a slight improvement.

Re:really?

[MozeeToby]

I would argue that it's a useless warning, in that 99.99% of the time people see Pedobear, it's as a joke. It would be like saying that many domestic abusers wear baseball caps, therefor you should be on the lookout for baseball caps because any time you see one someone will beat your spouse when you're not looking.

Re:really?

[mpeskett]

Given the frequency with which it's used by non-pedophiles, that would be a pretty crappy means of communication.

If the bear was supposed to be a secret "I'm a pedo too" signal, it'd just end up with perverts trying to contact random /b/tards, presumably with hilarious consequences.

Re:really?

[ColdWetDog]

And we all thank you for voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool.

And your contribution to the planet is, exactly what?

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedobear didn't get perverted by the Fark crowd. Perhaps you should visit 4chan sometime.

Re:really?

[slick7]

Their next pamphlets will be titled "Warning Parents! Ceiling Kitty Is Watching Your Family Masturbate!" and "Are Your Kids Getting Rickrolled?"

Here's my .response

Re:really?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

1) ebaumsworld is Evil
2) It's Ceiling Cat, not kitty

Re:really?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I don't escape my children, i expect slashdot to handle UniCode & KiddyCode equally well

Re:really?

[TruthSauce]

because I have no idea

Why not just leave it at that? It would be more accurate than what you just posted. :-)

Pedobear is a joke. Period.

Re:really?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Methane production i guess, like mine

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently carrying millions of potential children. Now I'm just waiting for your Mom.

Re:really?

[MozeeToby]

Aha, it's all part of a conspiracy on the part of /b/ to lure in pedos so that they can be hunted down (something that the /b/ board is almost scary good at if you believe some of the things you hear). On the other hand, given the amount of questionable age porn on /b/, I doubt that's the case.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain sites have Pedobear images on their home pages, some people use it as an avatar on forums... but the joke spirit of it remains. It's not the equivalent of code words.

Re:really?

[TruthSauce]

LOL. You said fark.

Re:really?

[RebootKid]

I respectfully disagree. The only instances I've seen Pedo Bear being used is two fold 1) As a joke (95% of the time) 2) When someone is being skeezy about kids, someone will reply with a Pedo Bear reference, basically using it as a tool to call someone out on it. If there is a 3rd category, I haven't seen it, nor have I been able to find it in various searches, so I'm going to go with a [Citation Needed] in reference to pedophiles using it as a tool to discuss with minors. Law enforcement is being stupid in this case.

Re:really?

[Ukab the Great]

I think requiring Ceiling Cat to be at least 18 years of age is a little unrealistic.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that it's a useless warning, in that 99.99% of the time people see Pedobear, it's as a joke. It would be like saying that many domestic abusers wear baseball caps, therefor you should be on the lookout for baseball caps because any time you see one someone will beat your spouse when you're not looking.

replace "Baseball caps" with "wife beaters"

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA -- the police have actually found pedobear images around when confronting pedophiles. They aren't being idiots, they're trying to convey relevant information.

Re:really?

[PCM2]

I don't agree that it makes them look stupid. PedoBear may be a joke, but dressing like PedoBear in a mask and costume and handing out candy is an inappropriate joke to play on young children (or their parents), and Comic-Con is crawling with young children. He shouldn't have been kicked out of the Con altogether (if he was), but I agree with telling him that he's had his fun and he can now go back to his hotel room and take the costume off.

Re:really?

[rwa2]

... and a frequent one at that...

yeah, I know a lot of the stuff there is ripped from 4chan. I'd say fark is a good way to experience some of the best of 4chan without actually having to visit 4chan.

/ also foobies.

// slashies!

Re:really?

[Scrameustache]

I'll fully admit I have no knowledge of whether the real pedophile community has adopted the image to communicate with each other. If (and its a big if) the police have real (i.e. not hypothetical) knowledge that real pedophiles use the image to communicate with each other, then the warning is appropriate (maybe they have undercovers in pedophile forums?). [...] I can't really dispute because I have no idea what those guys are doing!

So, despite your uncertainty and your doubts, you fear that hypothetical danger?

*sigh*, it's such a depressingly efficacious public relations technique.

have you been hanging out in REAL pedophile forums?

(nice try, officer)

Re:really?

[The End Of Days]

I hear the police have also noticed that all pedophiles require food to survive, so we can add "eating" to the list of suspicious behaviors as well.

The more you know...

Re:really?

[Chibi Merrow]

PedoBear may be a joke, but dressing like PedoBear in a mask and costume and handing out candy is an inappropriate joke to play on young children (or their parents)

Why? I can understand the organizers of ComicCon asking the guy to go away, but why should the police be able to tell someone to go away if the organizers haven't asked them to? I coulda sworn we had freedom of speech around here...

Re:really?

[DrgnDancer]

But as someone else pointed out, using this as a "warning sign" of any sort is pointless. If some pedos have started using it, that's all well and good; but the vast majority of its use is as a joke or insult. Therefore the vast majority of the times you see it there's no hidden meaning. It's like saying that anytime you see someone with a cell phone you should be worried, because occasionally people use cell phones to sell drugs.

Re:really?

[Scrameustache]

Perhaps you should visit 4chan sometime.

What a mean thing to say! Shame on you.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Important thing to note: if the pedobear costumed fellow was kicked out of ComiCon, did they give him a refund of his ticket fee? If not, he should sue.

Re:really?

[russotto]

PedoBear may be a joke, but dressing like PedoBear in a mask and costume and handing out candy is an inappropriate joke to play on young children (or their parents),

Why? It's going to go right over the children's heads.

Re:really?

[PCM2]

Why? I can understand the organizers of ComicCon asking the guy to go away, but why should the police be able to tell someone to go away if the organizers haven't asked them to?

Well, one, are you sure nobody asked them to? I would find it odd for your typical San Diego beat cop to be able to spot PedoBear in a crowd.

Two, the Comic-Con organization enlists police to (drumroll please) police the Con. I'm not sure you're aware of the size and magnitude of this event. It's no convention in a hotel lobby; the convention center itself is like a small city. Convention-goers take over all of downtown San Diego for three solid days. It would be impossible for the Con organizers -- who are a nonprofit, volunteer organization -- to police the whole thing themselves.

Re:really?

[Type44Q]

I don't get why people try to protect children. Lock the god damn things in a cage or throw them all in the deepest hole you can find...

It sounds like those might have been places where you spent a lot of your own childhood... :P

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason that description reminds me of McMoo, the anti-drug cow.

Re:really?

[Archangel Michael]

Don't forget that all Pedophiles are heavily into Di-hydrogen Monoxide!

Re:really?

[FuckingNickName]

Why? It's going to go right over the children's heads.

So "must aim higher" works figuratively and literally?

Kinky.

(Was that inappropriate?)

Re:really?

[PCM2]

If the cops just asked him to leave, it would have been trivial for him to go back to his hotel room, change out of the PedoBear suit, change back into street clothes, then return to the Con and track down somebody with some kind of authority to plead his case. Comic-Con isn't as uptight as this story makes it sound. I wouldn't have been surprised if they let him wear the suit if he promised to stick to the alternative comics alley or something, instead of the front lobby.

TFA is also sort of stupid for talking about "police" as if they're one, monolithic organization. This description of what happened at Comic-Con was written by San Luis Obispo County sheriffs ... who weren't there. San Diego County has its own sheriff's department and San Diego City has its own police department. It may also be worth noting that San Luis Obispo county has lower incidence of most types of crimes than the national average ... except rapes.

Re:really?

[cusco]

More likely "undercover" is just their justification for surfing porn at work.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen some of these real pedophile forums, and I can assure you they're too busy posting actually illegal material to have time for a drawn bear.

Posting anonymous in fear of being labeled by someone.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't end your sentences with periods.

Re:really?

[Chibi Merrow]

Well, one, are you sure nobody asked them to? I would find it odd for your typical San Diego beat cop to be able to spot PedoBear in a crowd.

No, I'm not sure whether they were asked or not. But I was more questioning your statement, not what actually happened. You seemed to be implying that it would be okay for a police officer to walk up and ask someone to leave an event solely because they were dressed in a bear costume, even though they were breaking no laws.

Two, the Comic-Con organization enlists police to (drumroll please) police the Con. I'm not sure you're aware of the size and magnitude of this event. It's no convention in a hotel lobby; the convention center itself is like a small city. Convention-goers take over all of downtown San Diego for three solid days. It would be impossible for the Con organizers -- who are a nonprofit, volunteer organization -- to police the whole thing themselves.

I'm well aware of the size of ComicCon. That has no bearing on my point. All I was questioning was your seeming acceptance of the idea that police asking someone who isn't breaking any laws to leave an event without the request of event organizers is okay.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I very earnestly applaud your decision. Based on the content of your other comments here, you're truly doing the world a great service even if you're just joking. After all, that's what this is all about, isn't it? Whether or not tasteless jokes have anything to do with truly offensive behavior? I'll leave that for you to sort out, but between making jokes about tossing kids in a deep hole and feeling like you need to lock yourself in secure buildings to prevent fourteen year old kids from hitting on you... thanks again for your choice not to have kids.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?"

Re:really?

[Hatta]

And I thank you for producing more future laborers and tax payers who will subsidize my retirement.

Can I ask you something? Why would I want to be part of the gene pool? How would it benefit me personally?

Re:really?

[SamSim]

"It's 2am. Do you know who all your base are belong to?"

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't. In fact, you'd have an endless stream of republitards screaming at you for getting your wife pregnant and then three months later losing your job. You sucking leech! How dare you bring a child into the world you couldn't support! But don't you dare get rid of it!

Birth rate is declining for a reason, but damned if any of the republitards care to do anything about either the financial security required to establish a family (why should I give them a job?!?!?!?) or to tone down their vitriol they spew at people who were unfortunate enough to lose their job in a recession.

I'm still waiting for just one republitard to explain how ending unemployment will magically make employers hire six times as many people (are we still at one job opening per six job seekers? Thats where we were when these guys started calling for the government to stop extending unemployment benefits because it makes people lazy and sit around and not get those jobs that don't exist)

Re:really?

[crossmr]

Yes you could have sworn it was true, but that's what happens when you grow complacent and distracted..

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-posting comments from TFA

"Anonymous said...

I am worried that my children are not attractive enough to attract a top tier pedo like Pedo Bear.
I am concerned the best they can do in terms of kid touches is a sheriff's deputy or a Catholic priest. What's a parent to do? "

Re:really?

[hitmark]

perhaps you should put your observations to writing nad sell it to police evaluation boards?

Re:really?

[tftp]

Can I ask you something? Why would I want to be part of the gene pool? How would it benefit me personally?

You are supposed to evaluate this question emotionally, not logically. Because logic says that there is no good reason for any of us to exist. The classical need for children died along with the patriarchal peasant family. Today you are much better off having none of that, as long as you don't feel the urge to multiply.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen preach it

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The great thing about Rick Astley is he's never going to let you down. :-)

Re:really?

[mr_mischief]

So the cops can start arresting people for pot dealing because they have Grateful Dead stickers on their cars? They can harass skinny people about meth production? A kid with a baseball bat should be stopped for questioning over assault with a deadly weapon?

"This small group does X" is not a valid excuse to pick someone out of a crowd when there's a much larger group that also does X.

Re:really?

[webheaded]

I nearly spit out my sandwich reading that. Thank you. xD

Re:really?

[webheaded]

Reminds me of something...oh right, when someone goes on a killing spree and OMG they have video games! No one has video games, this person is special! :O

Kicked Out?

[0racle]

Seriously? They kicked PedoBear out of ComicCon?

Re:Kicked Out?

[commodore64_love]

CENSORSHIP. It's a joke. Perhaps distasteful but no worse than Conan O'Brien's masturbating bear.

It's humor Mr. Comicon security guard with a dildo shoved up his ass. What an anal-retentive bastard.

Re:Kicked Out?

[Anonymous Coward]

You had a point til you got all trollish about it.

Re:Kicked Out?

[geekoid]

Um, a great many people don't want pedophile ideas, humor, around kids. SO allowing it would be about for business.. and comic con fans in general.

It's worse the COBs master bating bear in that the masterbating bear is on a late night channel.

Re:Kicked Out?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's counterproductive. He'll just hang out in his windowless van and cruise the neighborhood.

Re:Kicked Out?

[Steauengeglase]

I thought that was really about a guy going into a non-costume area with a consume on, not the costume itself?

Re:Kicked Out?

[Rogerborg]

That's counterproductive. He'll just hang out in his windowless van and cruise the neighborhood.

Wait, it's Wil Wheaton in the PedoBear outfit?

[Gag Reel @ 2:00, but -1 to your Nerd Cred if you needed to be told that]

Re:Kicked Out?

[Americano]

The problem is, "family friendly" events - or those that wish to describe themselves as such - don't usually include "Teach your kids what a pedophile is!" on their roster of activities.

"Perhaps distasteful" == "why he was removed from ComicCon."

Re:Kicked Out?

[interval1066]

Yep. Read its entry on wikipedia.org, a story I know to be true according to a friend of mine who was there. And this regarding the SLO police department;

"...warning parents that the image can indicate the presence of pedophiles.

Just think about how stupid that is. Since when has any jurisdiction put up a "Danger: Pedophiles in the area" sign, as though it were some kind of deer crossing. I should really never cease to be amazed by any governmental agencies ability to be stupid.

Be Careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Pedobear says, "Old enough to walk, old enough for [Pedobear]."
All precautions must be taken to prevent this monster from ravaging our children.

If your children see Double Rainbows...

[Picass0]

...ask them "What does it mean?"

Re:If your children see Double Rainbows...

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably need corrective eye glasses

Proves Anything Can Be Misinterpreted

[Anonymous Coward]

Placed in the RIGHT hands, anything can be looped back on itself and aggressively misinterpreted. Lets go burn a Koran Today...

Re:Proves Anything Can Be Misinterpreted

[hesiod]

Lets go burn a Koran Today...

I'll bring the blank CDs!

Next Publication

[MrTripps]

Next on the reading list is Goat.se 101 and The Beginner's Guide to Rick Rolling.

pedo means fart in Spanish

[alonsoac]

It should be noted that "pedo" means fart in Spanish.

Re:pedo means fart in Spanish

[interkin3tic]

Now -THAT- is a scary bear.

Re:pedo means fart in Spanish

[Anonymous Coward]

So pedophilia sounds really gross for you spaniards then, huh?

Again paranoia rules the roost

[antifoidulus]

This constant paranoia over pedophilia has gotten insane. While it is a terrible crime, the odds of your kid getting killed by an SUV dwarf the odds that they will get molested by a stranger(some studies suggest that the child knows the perpetrator about 90% of the time). Meanwhile fearful parents park their kids in front of some sort of glowing rectangle and let them eat themselves to an early grave because a guaranteed life of obesity seems somehow better than a slim(really slim if your properly educate and observe the children) chance that they will be molested.

Furthermore the whole police state mentality is driving people who have these urges further and further underground. Dan Savage had a really interesting call on his podcast a few months back about someone who said he couldn't control his attraction to children. He hadn't molested anyone yet but he was scared he might, but thanks to the way the law is written now, if he seeks help the psychiatrist MUST report him to the cops where he will be thrown in prison and then booted out into a world where he is a pariah just for THOUGHTS he may have had. So instead of this man being able to seek professional help(which could include chemical castration), he is now forced to battle his demons on his own and is probably MORE likely to molest a kid than if he had been able to get help. But somehow Americans think that if they can use the police to arrest someone, they should no matter what the actual or perceived crime is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to minimize molestation, it's a real and terrible thing. But being irrationally afraid of the problem isn't going to make it go away and really isn't going to leave your children in a very healthy state when they grow up.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[AnonymousClown]

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to minimize molestation, it's a real and terrible thing.

I find rather annoying that you had to be that explicit and make that statement even here on Slashdot.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[gad_zuki!]

>et molested by a stranger(some studies suggest that the child knows the perpetrator about 90% of the time).

Typically, they call him "Father" at Church.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[ronocdh]

I'm certainly not trying to minimize molestation

Burn him, burn him!

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[the_womble]

Not only to kids usually know the abuser, the abuser is usually a member of their family.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Spectre]

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to minimize molestation,

*grin* Are you trying to maximize molestation? more, More, MORE!

S'okay, I know you meant "I'm certainly not trying to trivialize molestation,"

Yes, you are correct, in the vast majority of cases where children are molested by adults, it is by either a family member or friend of the family, not some stranger the parents/guardians don't even know about.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

a guaranteed life of obesity seems somehow better than a slim [...] chance that they will be molested. [...]

it's a real and terrible thing.

... not really.

I know a LOT of people that did stuff when they were 8-14. This includes people that were 10-12 and getting/giving oral to other kids in their class, or (common) girls who were 12-13 the first time they screwed an 18 year old boy. Hell, I know a lot of girls that were 14-15 and actively seducing 22-25 year old guys; this had at one point been an annoyance for me because ... well, they're not unique, and I've been hit on by 14 year olds. Easy fix for that is hang out in bars where 14 year olds can't go, and work in a secure building you need a clearance to get into (cleared commercial contractor or federal building)... no more annoying teenagers trying to get me in trouble! (Yes I'm paranoid; teenage girls are evil and they MUST be fishing for blackmail material, I swear... don't fucking touch them)

Overall though, the people I know that went through that stuff... had fun, and are actually pretty happy about it. People I know that didn't seem more uptight and afraid of their own shadow, and also more prone to rely on the opinions of others even when their own feelings differ (group-think... you can tell, because they either get very uncomfortable or very aggressive while they try to blend in).

Of course, I know people who were raped and they're not happy about it, and have some lingering issues... after over a decade they understand their issues, but still have a little trouble. I don't know anyone whose been raped and murdered, though... for obvious reasons.

People make a lot of noise about nothing.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

People make a lot of noise about nothing.

Given the content of your post, it is obvious that you are a pedophile. Also, I see that you failed to post that anonymously. I will be reporting you to the authorities so that they can permanently ruin your life, which is far less punishment than you deserve.

I will also point out that every reader who has not responded exactly as I have is just as guilty, and just as deserving of punishment, as this filthy, filthy pedophile.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[evanism]

Hey! What's wrong with SUV dwarves? They are great people, only their choice of vehicle is inappropriate.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since you have a few anecdotes to share, I guess that means the reams of studies and statistics demonstrating the very real, long term, and harmful consequences of sexual abuse of children is invalidated!

Thanks for letting us know.

For what it's worth: sexual contact with a child by an adult (which is what we're talking about when we talk about pedophilia) is rape. It is very different from a couple 12 year olds "playing doctor." I also find it curious that you seem to feel most 14 year old girls are trying to hit on you, to the point that you have to sequester yourselves from their attention - is it a function of their actual behavior, or a function of you misinterpreting innocuous behavior?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Gerafix]

If by insane you mean political. It's an extremely easy thing to demonize, especially in the Western 'Culture of Fear.' That makes it easy to funnel money into whatever the politicos want simply because they claim they're "thinking of the children, and if you don't like it you're a pedophile." Scare tactics will always be a net positive for politicos while the public at large suffers even while they think they're "safer" or whatever makes them feel better. Fear is easy money.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[interkin3tic]

if he seeks help the psychiatrist MUST report him to the cops where he will be thrown in prison and then booted out into a world where he is a pariah just for THOUGHTS he may have had. So instead of this man being able to seek professional help(which could include chemical castration), he is now forced to battle his demons on his own and is probably MORE likely to molest a kid than if he had been able to get help.

These days I'm usually not to skeptical when someone mentions laws which seem horribly unconstitutional. I know I'm probably going to be disappointed by the answer, but I still have to ask: are you sure that having a certain attraction without doing anything is actually a crime? I'm going to ask for a citation for that, and a real citation, not a caller on Dan Savage's show. Because while there are some terrible laws, I thought we hadn't ventured into the territory of bona-fide thought crimes.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

except those of use whose child has been molested (by another child, not an adult)... However, I think this whole thing is absurd anyway

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedophilia is viewed far too neutrally here.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

parents park their kids in front of some sort of glowing rectangle and let them eat themselves to an early grave

Hey now, making my kids obese is PRECISELY how I'm protecting them from pedophiles. Keeping them virgins for as long as possible actually.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull fucking shit.

Far to the contrary, my friend.

It's, at best, a trivial social issue when taken in context of many other social issues, yet it is granted the greatest license of any aspect of fear-based argument.

I think, even here, people are acting batshit insane about it.

And keep in mind that "pedophilia" is THOUGHTS and FEELINGS, not even an action. As far as I know, the only studies on population samples (the only kind that can make broad conclusions) the topic are extremely old (1950s), because it is IMPOSSIBLE to get funding for research on non-offending populations and impossible to find survey populations that aren't incarcerated due to social stigmas and mandatory reporting laws.

The fact that we can't even do proper science on the topic because the stigma is so strong (even within the NSF and the APA) should point out the extreme fallacy in what you're saying.

Yeesh.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[TruthSauce]

Actually, more often, they call him daddy or uncle (statistically, yes, seriously).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Internalist]

Argh, no mod points. Why was this modded Troll?

Parent (and to a lesser extent Parallel Parent) makes valid points. The difference between

1. the consenting behaviour of children playing doctor (to the extent that children can give consent),
2. the non-consensual nature of molestation (whether by a stranger or not) as it's standardly understood, and
3. the power dynamic that can result in coerced "consent" in e.g. relationships between 14 and 22 year-olds

are hugely different.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Reality Master 101]

This constant paranoia over pedophilia has gotten insane. While it is a terrible crime, the odds of your kid getting killed by an SUV dwarf the odds that they will get molested by a stranger(some studies suggest that the child knows the perpetrator about 90% of the time).

Ah, the amusing irony of lamenting the unreasonable paranoia about pedophilia, and then using the unreasonable paranoia about SUVs in your point.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Most studies on the topic only question those cases that are referred to law enforcement.

Population samples are much harder to find and consistently indicate minor long-term problems, but in aggregate, those are minimal... roughly as strong a correlation as growing up black, or poor.

Very few studies (only 3 IIRC) even allow the participants to specify that they feel the experience was positive. Those that do tend to have a not insubstantial number of responses that indicate this outcome.

Overall, the effect is a net-negative, certainly indicating a relative need to curtail the behavior, but it is NOT pervasive, nor it is necessarily automatically harmful.

I should know, I was a "victim" and have participated in victim counseling groups that were just awful. They tried to TRAIN us to blame all of our problems on the abuse, and many people bought it.

I've recently made contact with my "abuser" again, and we have become friends. I realized that using him as a scapegoat was hurting me, so instead I talked to him honestly about the things I liked and didn't like and have since gone on to meet a number of other former "victims" who are in the same boat.

My best friend was abused by a totally creepy guy for over 10 years and while he wishes it hadn't happened, he also recognizes that, frankly, it wasn't as big a deal. He has way more issues today stemming from his mother being overly-protective after this was all discovered, than he ever did with some weird guy tugging on his penis once a month.

Reading about the topic is something I do often and I know many many "victims". Those who are raped... as in... pinned down and penetrated... they have SERIOUS issues with trust and other things, but the majority of us who were gently diddled by someone we trusted... meh. Frankly, not something we should condone, but also not really a big deal.

I don't understand the paranoia. It's so unproductive as to be almost absurd.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Tetsujin]

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to minimize molestation, it's a real and terrible thing.

I find rather annoying that you had to be that explicit and make that statement even here on Slashdot.

Basically we're so screwed up about how we deal with this issue that people don't dare talk about it without constantly, defensively, and preemptively asserting their non-pedophile status in the clearest ways possible. We don't dare handle this issue for fear of being tainted by it, we just kind of prod it with a ten-foot pole.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Tetsujin]

Well, since you have a few anecdotes to share, I guess that means the reams of studies and statistics demonstrating the very real, long term, and harmful consequences of sexual abuse of children is invalidated!

Don't be a douche. He was talking about underage sexual activity, not sexual abuse. The law doesn't distinguish the two, partly because it's hard to do so. But if you have have studies and statistics about the long-term aftereffects of consensual underage sex that you'd care to (not) cite, that could be different, you know?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[serutan]

I chalk this up largely to the modern American practice of government-by-fear. When they want to get away with something, the standard procedure is to give the public something to be scared of and then promise to protect us from it. There's no consideration of the various downsides of having a nation full of people afraid of their own shadows. The biggest one is probably that once the fear reflex is ingrained, anybody can use it.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[TruthSauce]

In many states, mandatory reporting laws have been interpreted to apply to those who merely express "pedophile tendencies" under the "imminent threat" statutes. Reporting does not often lead to prosecution, but it can. It can also lead to civil action such as social services intervention or execution of restraining orders.

I cite Indiana case law "Kevin Brown vs Indiana c 2006". His biological child was taken from him and his same-aged wife because he called a radio show and admitted to being attracted to kids. He had already informed his wife and friends and even had written plans to ensure that he would never be in a situation he could even remotely be accused of abusing a kid. Nevertheless, his child was taken by "emergency order of protection", by a squad of armed officers. In order to ensure his child didn't end up in foster care, he had to move out of his house, after which they placed the child with his wife and issued a restraining order against him "ad litem".

He took the case to the Indiana supreme court and lost. The conclusion was that there was no obligation of protection of liberty for someone who was an admitted pedophile because he represented an "imminent threat" and he could be subject to civil action by social services or otherwise.

Additionally, in California, in "Jack McLelan vs California c2007" a pedophile loudly proclaimed his attraction to young girls. The district attorney of his area applied a restraining order, barring him from being less than 10 meters from a child, or 100 meters from anywhere children congregate. This ban actually legally prevented him from entering the court, since there was a daycare facility in the same building, though they chose not to prosecute him for coming to his own hearings. He opted to leave the state rather than fight the restriction.

Presumably, a similar argument could be made in some states to raid his house and seize his electronics to search for illegal material, based on the "imminent threat" argument, though I'm not aware of that having been attempted, though it wouldn't surprise me if it had and simply didn't reach the public airwaves, due to the lack of notoriety of the target.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Ionized]

what you are talking about has nothing to do with pedophilia. for one, the correct usage of pedophilia only refers to young, prepubescent children. being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, teenagers and such (individuals that have mostly finished the physical maturation process - broad hips and bust in women, broad shoulders in men), is called ephebophilia, and is completely natural.

modern society has seen fit to lump it in with pedophilia, and for some reason 18 is seen as a magical age where 'OK, now it's socially acceptable to be sexually attracted to this person' but has no basis in biology or (nonrecent) human society. from a biological perspective, we are PROGRAMMED to be attracted to individuals in the mid to upper teenage years, because they are most likely to bear healthy offspring. given the variation that can occur in individuals reaching physical maturity, it can be damn hard to differentiate between some 16 year olds and 20 year olds.

For countless thousands of years, females were being married and having children at ages that would cause modern society to cringe, oftentimes to much older men, and it was the norm. Of course, recent advances in women's rights has probably had a lot to do with it, as now a female is treated as a human being with rights, as opposed to a piece of property that was to be married off for a dowry and social standing. but i digress.

actual pedophilia would be the case of a significantly older individual taking advantage of their position of power to sexually abuse a young, prepubescent child who is either unable to stop the attacker, or is too young/confused/scared to make a decision on the matter. it is ALWAYS rape, because the child can never give true consent, because they simply can't really understand what is going on. this has been shown to usually cause significant mental trauma and long term effects to the child, who is often made to feel guilty and ashamed of the whole thing, possibly repressing the memories to cause a festering canker of mental scar tissue that will stick around forever.

so... yeah. your anecdotes about horny young preteens and teenagers humping each other in the closet or hitting on older individuals is hardly relevant to the issue of pedophilia.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[HTH NE1]

You mean like, "Not that there isn't everything wrong about that"?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Chowderbags]

if he seeks help the psychiatrist MUST report him to the cops where he will be thrown in prison and then booted out into a world where he is a pariah just for THOUGHTS he may have had

It was my understanding that Tarasoff warnings are only applicable if there is knowledge of specific targets for the murder/rape/assault/abuse, and even then that warning does not constitute an abridgment of doctor-patient confidentiality (in cases where it applies in the first place).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Actually, about as often, they call him "mom's boyfriend".

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

I also find it curious that you seem to feel most 14 year old girls are trying to hit on you,

It's a combination of having mostly girls for friends and having odd behavior pointed out by people who actually behaved the same way at that age; and way-too-young girls flat out asking if I want to do wildly inappropriate things. The latter happens less often; it's rather unnerving.

You can call it "rape" but the term "rape" specifically indicates violent, non-consensual sexual acts. We've managed to call this stuff "rape" by claiming that anyone under 18 years old (16 here) cannot physically give consent; I find this an inappropriate abuse of terms, especially if you want to discuss psychology: violent abuse versus inappropriate behavior, one of these will lead to severe psychological trauma and the other may lead to a major change in ethical development (MAY, because I know people who are predisposed to turn out as sluts anyway-- the ones that made it to 18 and then fucked 30 boys their freshman year in college after losing their virginity).

When discussing politics, however, terming it "rape" brings NIGHTMARES into peoples' heads when you speak, giving you frightened sheep. This never, ever turns out good: we're no longer making rational decisions, and we're now willing to hand over all our rights "to protect the children." For those who suck at abstract thinking: I just called the politicians terrorists.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

1. the consenting behaviour of children playing doctor (to the extent that children can give consent),
2. the non-consensual nature of molestation (whether by a stranger or not) as it's standardly understood, and
3. the power dynamic that can result in coerced "consent" in e.g. relationships between 14 and 22 year-olds

are hugely different.

Exactly. Also point 4, the inherent nature of ... children is seeming to look less appropriate of a term here... what do we term girls who hit 11 or 12 and start "sexually exploring," except we don't want to call it "exploring" because they're going after high school seniors and college guys? And I mean going after. 14-17 seems to be the sweet spot for girls chasing down older guys; but there are young-teens or almost-teens going after mid-teens a LOT more than you think; and as they approach mid-teen ages, they start focusing on upper teens and up to mid-20s ... sometimes they start right around 12 going after 20+ year olds.

The term "children" and "teenager" seem inappropriate here, because "teenager" is used for "young adult" or "adolescent" i.e. 15-18, while "children" aims towards the below-10-years-old ages; yet we're discussing a development stage where odd hormones are showing up and messing with shit...

So we're down to misbehaving kids; force (rape); power dynamics from adult-predating-child (coercion); power dynamics from child-predating-adult (seduction). People want to conveniently ignore the first one and treat the last two as the second one; unfortunately that means they treat all such situations identically, and really the damage (or non-damage) done in any of these situations is related to the exact situation here (for example, a victim of coercion won't be as traumatized as a victim of rape; while a misbehaved 12 year old seductress probably ... honestly? She'd probably grow up either with a habit of abusing her sexuality to get her way or just as a slut, sex with adults or not; but maybe some moral guidance here would be appropriate, starting with TELLING HER THIS SHIT WON'T GET HER ANYWHERE instead of screwing her ~_~).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Not really. There has to be a credible imminent threat. An identifiable victim isn't required.

If you say "I'm going to go postal at work" or "I'm going to take my rifle to the clock tower and have some target practice" or "I'm going to drive my car up on the sidwalk and run over as many pedestrians as I can at the festival this weekend", you may get reported even though you haven't specified a particular victim.

Of course, it's more complicated than that. The warning can only be issued if the therapist decides the threat is credible. The threatened actions must also cross an ethical line with the therapist. Most therapists, for example, won't turn you in to the police if you admit to smoking a joint. But if that, relative to your treatment and issues, hit some particular ethical hot button for that therapist, they could.

"I'm thinking about molesting kids" is a very, very tough problem for therapists. Finding one who won't sound the alarm isn't easy. Few are willing and trained to deal with such folks without panic. The ones that do expose themselves to liability for failing to sound the alarm if one of their patients starts acting out.

Therapists for potential sex offenders who have NOT been charged and who are NOT already in the legal system are scarce as all hell. If you look for one about the best you can come up with is stopoffending.com. (I think; I'm at work and filtered so I can't verify.) If you read over their site, you'll find that even they barely acknowledge the idea that someone who has not yet committed a crime may seek help.

God help you if you just waltz into a psychiatrists office and proclaim "I'm thinking about diddling kids. Can you help me?"

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Fulcrum of Evil]

He's probably talking about Mandated reporters

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't understand the paranoia. It's so unproductive as to be almost absurd.

Sheep herder mentality. The politicians incite fear and get control. We always need witches in our society to hunt.

Yes, you're right, this is not something we should condone. But that said, we have absolutely no way of evaluating "13 year old Megan snuck over the neighbors house and asked to suck his dick after going on the Internet to look at NAUGHTY PICTURES teeeheeeheee..." (yes this happens) versus "35 year old Michael Kiddyfucker gagged, beat, and anally raped 9 year old Jenny for 10 hours straight." That means our very reaction to a ... behavioral issue... is harsh and thus likely traumatizing. Worse, pressure and coercion issues (rather than outright rape) cause mental disturbances that are EASY to deal with; but we treat them like serious catastrophic tragedy and ... cause severe trauma, again.

So we're causing damage by evaluating the situation wrong. We're applying the wrong kind of "help" at the very least, and at times where no help is needed (I know, that's a risky thing to say; but it happens to be true, just extremely unpleasant...).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the insightful information. And to underline your point, I'm off to add BenEnglishAtHome to my "keep away from the creepy pedophile" list....

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

what do we term girls who hit 11 or 12 and start "sexually exploring," except we don't want to call it "exploring" because they're going after high school seniors and college guys?

You call them exactly what they are: Misguided children who are exploring in an area which carries with it a lot of risk. And you call the high school seniors and college guys who fall for the "predatory" behavior of this infinitesimally small number of girls exactly what they are: misguided adolescents and adults, and possibly criminals. If you're 20 years old, and incapable of thinking with anything besides your dick, you have problems. If you're 20 years old, and find the average 11-12 year old girl sexually attractive, you have problems. I don't understand why you are so insistent on framing this debate in terms of the overwhelming exceptions, rather than the majority of cases. "most" 11 year old girls are not sexual predators who are flinging themselves at 20 year old college students. And if they are, the 20 year old college students should still know better.

So we're down to misbehaving kids; force (rape); power dynamics from adult-predating-child (coercion); power dynamics from child-predating-adult (seduction).

Sexual exploration / misbehaving kids / kids playing doctor will happen, and it is usually based in curiosity over biological differences between boys and girls. It is a *normal* part of development, that a child will be curious about what they have, and what the other gender has, anatomically speaking. This is largely harmless exploration, as it is usually consensual, and based on a "show me yours and i'll show you mine" quid-pro-quo. It's not generally a forced situation for the child, and it also doesn't generally involve intercourse, or a massive betrayal of trust & authority.

Your apparent obsession with "Lolita" aside, the last is just not common enough to be treated as any different than the "adult-predating-child". Children do stupid shit. Adults are supposed to know better: if you are an adult, and you are falling for the sexual predations of a fucking 12 year old, you have boundary issues. We are not talking about a 16 year old girl sleeping with her 19 year old boyfriend, we're talking about an adult of 20+ years being "coerced" into sex by a 12 year old. This is simply ludicrous on its face: if you cannot know better, as an adult, and cannot say "no," then you pretty much fail at life.

Once again: that you seem to feel that every prepubescent and pubescent girl is guilty of behaving sexually says a lot about how you look at prepubescent and pubescent girls, and frankly, it frightens me a little to hear you saying these things as if they're completely reasonable.

So let's be clear: In the majority of cases, the predation you are suggesting happens is NOT happening. This is a coward's ploy to shift the blame for behavior to the victim. As the adult, you should know better; As the adult, you should enforce the boundaries, and tell the child that this is not appropriate behavior to engage in with an adult; As an adult, you should be saying "No," regardless of how 'sexually mature' you think that 12 year old looks. (Pro tip: The vast majority of 12 year olds have not even *begun* to look sexually mature.)

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a douche. He was talking about underage sexual activity, not sexual abuse.

Yes, and "underage sexual activity" - in the sense of two children of roughly the same age engaging in sexual exploration, is not pedophilia. Thus it is irrelevant to the topic of pedophilia.

An adult of 20+ years of age engaging in sexual activity with a barely-pubescent or prepubescent 10-12 year old is NOT 'underage sexual activity' - it is sexual activity between an adult and someone who is incapable of giving consent - therefore, statutory rape. His suggestion that it is commonly caused by some sort of hypersexual 12 year old "preying" on the unsuspecting adult is foolish, and certainly looks & sounds like a justification for sexual abuse - adults are responsible for their actions. If you cannot keep your hands out of the 13-year-old neighbors' pants, even if she tells you she *wants* you to, you have an issue with appropriate behaviors for adults and appropriate boundaries. And frankly, I do not believe that the Lolita scenario is anything even remotely approaching "infrequent" -- more in the category of "almost never happens that way."

Let me ask you this very simple question: Would you want somebody who can say these things teaching *your* 12 year old daughter about sex?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Schadrach]

I have some similar anecdotes, if it makes you feel better. I don't get hit on by many teenaged girls though, never have -- mostly because I'm a gargoyle of a human being.

In high school, I knew a bunch of the 14-16 year old girls dating early to mid twenties guys though. All but two of the girls in my social circle were like that. I ended up dating one of those two, and the other one was with the same guy throughout high school and was more than a little repressed. My GF's best friend actually gave her the "You can do what you want, but I wouldn't date a guy under 23" speech about me. Honestly, the girls dating the much older guys were probably healthier from a mental standpoint than either of the other two, but one of them was really, really "there's something not right with that girl" stepford smiling repressed girl (you could tell when she was on the rag, she only showed emotion at all a couple of days per month), and the other had excessively overprotective parents that did things like recording and reviewing all her phone conversations on the "not so invasive" side. So, they might not be the best standards for comparison.

Honestly, my experiences in high school and college make me think that either the age of consent needs dropped a few years in most places, that it needs raised a *lot* based on the girls I knew in college.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape is defined as:

the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Children under the age of consent are unable to give consent; therefore any sexual intercourse between an adult and a child is non-consensual, and therefore, rape. It doesn't have to be violent - you can be very gentle if you want - it just has to be non-consensual.

Point is - YOUR ANECDOTES about how "this one girl I know fucked 30 guys her freshman year of college," does not render the thousands of studies and analytical data of sexual abuse and its long-term effects null and void. You seem far too invested in trying to show that sex with people under 18 is perfectly normal and acceptable, and entirely too quick to shift the blame for inappropriate behavior to the child.

It's termed "rape" because it *is* rape - a child under the age of consent cannot legally give that consent. Again, though exercise: would you trust somebody saying what you're saying to teach your own 12 year old son or daughter about sex? Would you agree that it's probably your predatory child's fault that they got raped?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[StikyPad]

And what better way to get to know kids than by dressing up in a cute bear costume? That is, in fact, the gist of the joke -- that kids would trust a cute and furry bear even if his very name describes his intentions. The fact that it's true, and perhaps that the naivety and stupidity of children is amusing at times -- Louis CK's standup is a hilarious case-in-point (though not his shows) -- does not mean that an actual sexual predator won't now attempt to use the joke to laugh his way into children's pants.

From what I can tell, the cops are basically saying "Yes, it started as a joke, but keep an eye out for people who may be *pretending* that their intentions are a joke." Pretending that one's true intentions are or were a joke is a pretty damn common occurrence -- especially by those with poor social skills -- and what are pedophiles if not the ultimate in social misfits? IMO, it's a plausible scenario. The line between legitimate concerns and paranoia is often crossed not by the person who raises the concern (as in this case) but in the frenzy of attention it receives.

Now *I'm* not particularly concerned about this potential attack vector, but I would probably care more if it was my job and responsibility to protect people. I would never live it down if a man dressed in a Pedobear costume actually molested a kid right in front of me. WTF would I say? "I thought it was just a joke!"? It's the same reason jokes about assassinating the President or prank bomb threats are treated the same as actual threats. To do otherwise would only provide easy cover for anyone with actual intent to do harm.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Chowderbags]

Fair enough. Quite frankly, I find the whole Tarasoff ruling to be abhorrent for that very reason. It puts way too much power in the doctor's hands to use their own judgment (and worse, be liable if they don't) as to what is or isn't reasonable suspicion of a credible threat, and given that there are a number of psychiatric "professionals" who are graduating from fundamentalist colleges either with a psychology degree or something like a "Christian Social Work" degree, it's a fucked up situation.

Hell, it's probably even worse than that since most states put stronger protections of priest-penitent privilege than they do on mental health professional privilege.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[cusco]

My brother's friend in college went to a party where IDs were checked for admission because of booze being provided. He met some girl, they made out for a while, and he dumped her because she seemed a bit weird. Having had enough to drink he went back to the dorm and went to bed.

She found out where he lived, broke into the dorm through an unlocked window and climbed naked into bed with him. He woke up, they screwed for a while, and in the morning he threw her out.

Three months later she was pregnant and because Michigan is a Parental Notification state she had to tell Daddy before she could get an abortion. Daddy, being a big-shot lawyer, got John thrown into Jackson Penitentiary for five years for child rape, even though she testified under oath everything that I wrote above. Now he has to register for the rest of his life as a pedophile.

Girls are entering puberty earlier than ever before, often before age 10, and properly applied makeup can easily add or remove a decade from a face. If I hadn't seen the little girl across the street since she was in third grade I would have no way of knowing whether she was 20 (what she wants to look like) or her actual age of 14. If she got the hots for some older guy and lied to you, would you automatically check her ID to make sure she wasn't jail bait?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

he called a radio show and admitted to being attracted to kids.

Well, I don't have children myself but I'm quite fond of the idea of locking up anyone who has an unhealthy attraction to kids. Sure, it's not really fair if the man/woman hasn't actually done anything, but when it comes to the safety of children I'll always err on the side of caution.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

In some/many countries, the protection age is 14 years, so you are legally allowed to fuck 14 year old girls (as long as you dont force them, or pay them). So 14 year olds seducing 18 year olds is not a legal problem. (The fun fact in many countrys is: You can fuck them all you want, but taking a photo of them doing so will net you a few years for child porn)

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Tetsujin]

You've got a fair point that underage sexual activity is largely irrelevant to the topic of pedophilia. I think bluefoxlucid may have taken antifoidulus's text a bit out of context, or gone off-topic a bit. But his point, as I understood it, is that there's a distinction between underage sex and sexual abuse - and that it's not the act of underage sex that's harmful, but the scenario of being raped.

The law can put out a blanket definition that classifies any sex with a minor as "rape" - and that can be a very useful thing, since law and its execution are inherently imperfect - but when I use the word "rape" I refer specifically and exclusively to cases where the sexual activity is non-consensual.

It's fine if you don't believe bluefoxlucid's stories are typical of actual reality. It doesn't reflect my world view either. But I think if you (I assume you're the same coward) want to bitch about how his anecdotes contradict piles of research, you should at least make sure it's the right research, that's all.

Let me ask you this very simple question: Would you want somebody who can say these things teaching *your* 12 year old daughter about sex?

This seems like a ridiculous and somewhat vague question.

No, I wouldn't want my daughter to have sex when she's 12, at all. I expect I'd do my best to prevent that. But if she chose to do so, I don't think it would then be right to say the other party had committed "rape". Whatever the law says, I think 12 is old enough that a child should be able to take a certain level of personal responsibility for their decisions. If my daughter makes a decision and then finds she regrets it, is it right then to use the law to ruin someone else's life for it? I don't think that's something to be taken lightly.

But there's how I view the issue in principle, and how I'd actually react when this is no longer an abstract question, and there's decisions I might be obligated to make based on other facets of the law. I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation. I hope I'll never have to find out. :)

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

... is not pedophilia.

This may interest you: Technically it's only pedophilia if the younger party is prepubescent, my impression of the parent post was that it was about girls in the 12-17 age bracket, basically teenagers going through (or recently having gone through) puberty. So it's not really pedophilia.

An adult of 20+ years of age engaging in sexual activity with a barely-pubescent or prepubescent 10-12 year old is NOT 'underage sexual activity' - it is sexual activity between an adult and someone who is incapable of giving consent - therefore, statutory rape.

You start off by using what the people at Wikipedia call "weasel words" (you reworded it from "young girl choosing to have sex with adult male" to "adult male pounding his dick into a young girl"). Also, the main focus of the original post by bluefoxlucid was on teenagers, not the 10-12 year olds. Finally you finished off by using circular reasoning to argue that "this is illegal because it's illegal and thus it should be illegal" when the original post wasn't so much about legality as it was about actual behavior.

His suggestion that it is commonly caused by some sort of hypersexual 12 year old "preying" on the unsuspecting adult is foolish, and certainly looks & sounds like a justification for sexual abuse - adults are responsible for their actions. If you cannot keep your hands out of the 13-year-old neighbors' pants, even if she tells you she *wants* you to, you have an issue with appropriate behaviors for adults and appropriate boundaries. And frankly, I do not believe that the Lolita scenario is anything even remotely approaching "infrequent" -- more in the category of "almost never happens that way."

You keep lowballing the ages, clearly you have an agenda here. Also, as for the frequency of this happening, I'll just say that at the junior high school I went to (not in the US though) there was a formal survey about sexual habits which was given to all students, apparently this survey showed what all the boys already knew, the girls were getting it on (with older guys) while the boys weren't getting any (with a few exceptions). Teenage girls do tend to prefer older guys (although more in the 18-25 age bracket and less in the stereotypical "dirty old man" age bracket) and amazingly all those guys who couldn't get any when they were 15-16 see a shot at some nookie when they're 20 and actually take the girls up on their offers.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

The legal definition of consent is not the only one out there, you know this right?

Also, I don't think he's talking about sexual abuse in the "daddy touched my no-no-place" sense, he's talking about what may legally be sexual abuse but which is in reality a young person (12 being the lower end of this, more commonly seen in 14-17 year olds) exploring his/her sexuality and doing so with older people (a couple of female friends of mine actually gave a few very good reasons for why this is so common: 1) 20 year old guys are more experienced than 14-15 year old guys 2) Generally speaking 20 year old guys behave more mature (although they're still quite childish by the standards of a 40 year old). 3) The 20 year old guy is a lot less likely to go around telling everyone what a dirty slut the girl is for sleeping with him. 4) Even if he does tell people she's a slut it's not people she's forced to be around every day in school. And yes, both of these friends of mine slept with older guys when they were in their teens).

It's termed "rape" because it *is* rape - a child under the age of consent cannot legally give that consent.

So american teenagers are dumber than swedish teenagers then? because in Sweden once they turn 15 they can fuck anyone they want and no one has any say in it (including parents) while in a lot of places in the US the age of consent is 18...

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[TruthSauce]

A few studies (they're really hard to find and finance) that try to determine the number of people in a population who are pedophiles, seem to indicate that they represent a non-trivial amount of the population (at least several million in the US/Canada) and something like 60-90% of them never do anything illegal.

Do you SERIOUSLY advocate locking up all of these people to "err on the side of caution"? Yeck.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an urban legend to me. My brother's college friend once was making out in the woods and got attacked by a dude with a hook for a hand. It went "SCRREEEEEE" "SCREEEEEE" on the roof of the car. And then somebody had their head chopped off or something.

often before age 10,

No, not "often". Average age for the *beginning* of puberty, defined by the hormonal changes that accompany the first formation of breast buds & development of pubic hair, is ~10.5 in western countries. From there, it is an average of ~4 years of development before puberty can be considered "complete" - meaning, menstruation has commenced, breasts are more or less fully developed, and pubic hair and genitalia are also fully developed.

Properly applied makeup does not produce breasts; properly applied makeup does not produce the bone structure of a woman's hips. And if you hadn't seen the little girl across the street since she was in third grade, I'd hope that you'd still at least find out more than 2 things about her before you fucked her.

Let's stop pretending that casual, anonymous sex happens commonly between 14 year olds and adults. It's a bullshit claim, and you know it as well as I do. If you're fucking anything that moves without so much as a "Hey, what's your name," that's YOUR fault, and society says it's a crime. "She looked 18 to me!" is not sufficient excuse for an adult, when the girl who "looks 18" talks about how bad gym class sucks, or how she used to like the Wiggles, but "that was like, 2 years ago." The scenarios you are describing are FAR from ordinary, and FAR from common - if they were as common as you suggest, then half of the male population would be in jail or on the sex offender registry. I can only conclude that the insistence some /.'ers have on perpetuating this meme has to do with some sort of twisted wishful thinking, where all those 14 year old girls are "really sluts who know what they want," and "just haven't gotten around to throwing themselves at me." MOST children and teenagers are not these hypersexual predators you seem to want them to be.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly, you're "we're down to" list sounds like a general list of "bad sexual relationship types" if you don't indicate the age of either person.

I'm not exactly a pretty boy, and I've seen the "young girl playing seductress" attempted on me. She was 12, a friend of one of my nieces. I was 19. I was also Captain Oblivious to the point that she eventually got frustrated, jumped on my lap when I wasn't expecting it, straddled me, started grinding and outright begging for exactly what she wanted in very specific and explicit terms (after this little outburst I realized she'd been dropping hints and trying to be...suggestive for a couple of weeks, I literally just didn't put 2 and 2 together until she was grinding her crotch on my lap and demanding things of an anatomical nature). That would have been harder to resist if I didn't have a GF at the time, one who was more than satisfying that particular need.

She got mad when I suggested that one of my nephews might be more interested. =p

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus christ that's scary as shit. I didn't know about either of those court cases.

How can anyone say America is a free country with a straight face? With the exception of owning guns, I'd say it's far more of a police state in every sense of the word than almost any country in the EU.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Schadrach]

"Most" children certainly aren't, I don't know if I can give you that for teenagers though. Between my own time as a teenager and having been the "cool uncle", I've spent more time around teenaged girls than I should probably admit to.

Predators? Probably not.
Hypersexual in a hot-and-cold sort of way? Most of them, at least around here. There's always that guy or guys that they all flirt with, and least a couple of them have done more than flirt with. Our VFD had one of those guys, one of my best friends since junior high *was* one of those guys, etc, etc.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[BancBoy]

the odds of your kid getting killed by an SUV dwarf

An SUV Dwarf, you say? What, pray tell, does one of those horrible creatures look like?

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[hitmark]

funny thing is that around 13 is when hormone production kicks in to make healthy humans fertile.

another case of social and biological being at odds.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that they do the same stuff to pervs in the EU. The UK and Germany are probably worse than the US in this regard, as is Australia.

I'm absolutely certain that the mere admission of attraction to children in the UK has been grounds for search and seizure of home and property. In Germany and Canada, it's illegal to write fiction about the topic, or to make drawings or sketches to that extent.

It's not a US problem.

It's a stark contrast to 33 years ago, when hard-core child pornography was completely legal in most of Europe and only borderline in the USA (under obscenity statutes).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex with people under 18 isn't even illegal.

You seem far too eager to confuse the law (in a particular jurisdiction) with morality; you mistake "is" with "ought" in a circular way. Because the law in a particular jurisdiction defines rape in a certain way, and consent in a certain way, you infer a universal definition of rape and then use the moral weight and abhorrence intrinsic in the common concept of rape (rather than the legal concept particular to a jurisdiction) to try and beat up other people.

You can't get there from where you're coming from. The law reflects a moral position, that rape is abhorrent, and then arranges a definition for what constitutes rape. But you can't go in the other direction. Things aren't abhorrent because they are illegal.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

But if she chose to do so, I don't think it would then be right to say the other party had committed "rape".

Agree.

Whatever the law says, I think 12 is old enough that a child should be able to take a certain level of personal responsibility for their decisions.

Yes we punish children when they misbehave. Engaging in behavior you're told not to is misbehaving. They are responsible for the consequences, including lost TV privileges and extra homework load.

If my daughter makes a decision and then finds she regrets it, is it right then to use the law to ruin someone else's life for it? I don't think that's something to be taken lightly.

Adults also have responsibility for their actions. While I agree that this is not "rape," the law exists for a reason. I think some of those reasons are stupid; others not so much. Execution of the law may or may not be excessive. If we decide to reduce punishment, we still shouldn't ELIMINATE it; "coercion" and "enticement" are rather interchangeable, and "enticement" is indistinguishable from this.

But there's how I view the issue in principle, and how I'd actually react when this is no longer an abstract question, and there's decisions I might be obligated to make based on other facets of the law. I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation. I hope I'll never have to find out. :)

I probably would care very little. But then, I wouldn't encounter that situation because I wouldn't have kids. I hate kids.

But in any case the point still stands: You have a child that was either raped, coerced, or ... well she started it. These are very different situations, and you can't paint the child as the "victim" in the same way across each (arguably in the latter case, not at all...). The situation, the social impact, the psychological impact, all of these are going to be different; they need to be handled differently, otherwise the child will be traumatized by the "help" given to help them "recover" from the crime committed against them.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Schadrach]

Larger/heavier vehicles in general present an increased risk for the other party in a car wreck. Some SUVs (especially older models) have a tendency to be weighted like a poorly designed pickup. It's a little less unreasonable than "molested by a stranger", though I agree it is still unreasonable.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Internalist]

Yeah, so clearly I didn't make the point I meant to (or else you're being willfully obtuse). I was not agreeing with your assessment of child/teen/adult sexual dynamics...

So we're down to misbehaving kids; force (rape); power dynamics from adult-predating-child (coercion) [...]

Coercion is coercion; rape is coerced sex. The latter two are basically the same w.r.t. the level of moral repugnance they typically engender. In fact, the last seems to be worst, if the treatment of child molesters as compared to "garden variety" rapists in jail is any indicator.

[...] power dynamics from child-predating-adult (seduction).

Someone else already called you on it, but this really doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you think it does, and perhaps more to the point, hypersexualised behaviour in kids is often a symptom of prior abuse. Also, something I was clearly too implicit about is that this kind of behaviour is licensed and even somewhat encouraged by many current sociocultural portrayals/expectations of tween/teen girls. It doesn't help that onset of puberty is going down, and so the "odd hormones [...] showing up and messing with shit" is happening at an age when girls are even less equipped (cognitively) to reason their way through.

People want to conveniently ignore the first one [...]

Huh? People talk about kids playing doctor all the time. Typically it's relatively innocent exploration, and there are usually clearly identifiable signs when it's symptomatic of something more nefarious.

[...]and treat the last two as the second one;

Newsflash: they are effectively the same. The reason we have age of consent laws is that we recognise that people under a certain age are typically (obviously absolutes are impossible in a situation like this) incapable of the kind of long-term thinking necessary to actually reason through the consequences and implications of making this kind of decision. Evidently, there's a lot of responsibility on parents' shoulders here to have frank discussions with their children exactly about this, and as a society we are collectively failing our parental duties on this score. The best thing we can do is to help our children through the reasoning.

unfortunately that means they treat all such situations identically, and really the damage (or non-damage) done in any of these situations is related to the exact situation here (for example, a victim of coercion won't be as traumatized as a victim of rape;

You're thinking short-term here. Victims of rape don't typically go on to become rapists, but victims of abuse/coercion often go on to become abusers/coercers. It's exactly these long-term implications that I'm saying are at issue.

while a misbehaved 12 year old seductress probably ...

Again with this. These lolitas that you seem to think are ubiquitous are in the overwhelming (underwhelming?) minority; I can assure you that you are not surrounded by them. Tweens who act this way are often in thrall to peer pressure or other forms of social coercion. They are, in some sense, not even fully consenting to their own behaviour.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

Your apparent obsession with "Lolita" aside, the last is just not common enough to be treated as any different than the "adult-predating-child".

So you take a child who misbehaved and put them in a therapy session where instead of saying, "You were bad, you shouldn't do that, why did you do that, your mother isn't happy," you instead say, "What happened to you was terrible, it's not your fault, it's okay, don't feel horrible, that man was a very bad man and he shouldn't have done what he did!"

... simply because the latter case happens more often, and so we'll just ignore what actually happened and treat it like something completely different that's more common.

Stupidity. Stop ignoring things that "don't happen a lot," or at least stop treating them like completely different things. Our society needs two things to deal with crimes of this nature: Punishment of the criminal and manner of dealing with the second party. Don't assume the second party is "innocent" just because they're a "victim" of a crime. Our society seems to have this ideal that since the same crime was committed, the situation must be the same, and the other party must be handled the same way; it just doesn't hold.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Internalist]

You've got a fair point that underage sexual activity is largely irrelevant to the topic of pedophilia.

Or, y'know, completely irrelevant, since pedophilia is adult attraction to children.

But [bluefoxlucid's] point, as I understood it, is that there's a distinction between underage sex and sexual abuse - and that it's not the act of underage sex that's harmful, but the scenario of being raped.

Rape is perhaps a more direct, physical form of harm, that evokes a visceral reaction because of its associated violence, but the basic premise w.r.t. underage sex (and I believe it's largely correct), is that children/tweens are incapable of giving informed consent. Even ignoring the complicated power dynamics that come with large age differences and focusing on two underage (but beyond the age of "playing doctor") kids having sex, the chains of reasoning and long-term thinking that are a prerequisite of informed consent simply elude most kids.

[...] when I use the word "rape" I refer specifically and exclusively to cases where the sexual activity is non-consensual.

See above. Children's "consent" is not the same as your consent.

Let me ask you this very simple question: Would you want somebody who can say these things teaching *your* 12 year old daughter about sex?

This seems like a ridiculous and somewhat vague question.

No, it seems pretty clear what the question means, but I can concretize it a bit more for you: would you want bluelucidfox teaching your 12-year-old daughter about sex?

No, I wouldn't want my daughter to have sex when she's 12, at all. I expect I'd do my best to prevent that. But if she chose to do so, I don't think it would then be right to say the other party had committed "rape".

I said this in reply to one of bluelucidfox's points; your (hypothetical?) 12-year-old's choice isn't free and informed the same way yours or mine is. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were convinced that you had successfully explained to her why you didn't want her to have sex. Then she comes home one day and the following (exaggerated-to-make-a-point) dialogue takes place:

Her: "I had sex with that 18-year-old, Tommy, who lives next door."
You: "Dang, I asked you not to do that, and explained what the long-term consequences are. Why'd you do it?"
Her: "Well, it felt pretty good. Plus he gave me an iPod."

Would you not feel like Tommy had somehow "taken advantage of" your daughter? Well, "taking advantage of" is tantamount to coercion, which is tantamount to rape. Coerced (whether by carrot or stick) consent, is not consent.

Whatever the law says, I think 12 is old enough that a child should be able to take a certain level of personal responsibility for their decisions.

Sure, if you're talking about "too many snacks before dinner", or "shoplift", or "skip class". Not, crucially, in the cases under discussion.

If my daughter makes a decision and then finds she regrets it, is it right then to use the law to ruin someone else's life for it? I don't think that's something to be taken lightly.

No, not lightly, but the issues warrant deeper thinking, and a willingness to "ruin someone else's life" if we feel it's warranted.

But there's how I view the issue in principle, and how I'd actually react when this is no longer an abstract question, and there's decisions I might be obligated to make based on other facets of the law. I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation. I hope I'll never have to find out. :)

Amen to that.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[bluefoxlucid]

Coercion is psychological and violent force is physical. Coercion conveys a sense that you still have some sort of control and level of safety, which leaves less psychological damage; outright violent force is devastating.

To fail to differentiate between the two leaves you with absolutely no way to help the victims: the first step in treating a coercion case like a rape case is to give the victim nightmares by convincing them what happened is FAR worse than they perceive; the first step in treating a rape case like a coercion case is to make the victim feel disconnected by failing to understand just how much psychological damage was done and treat them like they're making a big deal out of nothing.

The reason we have age of consent laws is that we recognise that people under a certain age are typically (obviously absolutes are impossible in a situation like this) incapable of the kind of long-term thinking necessary to actually reason through the consequences and implications of making this kind of decision.

This line of thinking is broken. The "consequences and implications of making this kind of decision" are exactly identical at 12 as they are at 22. What you're looking for here is "small children are easy to manipulate." When you grow up (reach 22-ish years old), the consequences of having sex with a 35 year old man are the same as with a 25 year old when you were 12. The difference here is the 35 year old can't talk down to a 22 year old college senior and get her sucking his dick in 5 minutes; oh sure, he might be able to get there, but if he's outright being a creep she is going to LEAVE. MANY danger flags that won't trigger a child's thought process will send adults fleeing far, FAR away.

The interesting thing here is parents use the same exact tactics to manipulate their children, warning them of false dangers or indicating false rewards to get them to behave. In other words, we make our children VERY naive, on purpose, so we can control them...

Evidently, there's a lot of responsibility on parents' shoulders here to have frank discussions with their children exactly about this, and as a society we are collectively failing our parental duties on this score. The best thing we can do is to help our children through the reasoning.

... which is exactly what's not being done, because then your kids are smarter than you. By the time they're 14 or 16 you can't control them at all.

In the city, the politicians keep the blacks stupid by fucking up the school system; then they tell them that the other political party is racist and suppressing them. In general, politicians confuse issues and the media overinflates political commentary and current events to keep the population panicked, stupid, and in general under control. And in the home, parents manipulate their children to keep them naive and stupid, easy to control. And then we get all upset about early teens getting taken by older men, while at the same time we're all adults here too smart for crazy sex hounds 20 years older than us but too stupid to not fall for a phishing attempt or Nigerian 419 scam.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[rrohbeck]

Yup. The incidence of pedophilia seems similar to homosexuality, i.e. low single digits, if you can find studies (which are mostly suppressed these days.)
If you lurk on truly anonymous channels like Tor or Freenet boards, you see that the majority of confessed pedophiles are aware of what's going on and that it would badly harm a child if they followed their feelings, so they don't do it. IMHO you need pedophilia plus be a sociopath to actually go ahead with it.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[alexo]

> This constant paranoia over pedophilia has gotten insane. While it is a terrible crime [...]

No it isn't.
Child molestation is a terrible crime; pedophilia is a psychological disorder, which may or may not result in abuse (similarly to the way gynephilia may or may not lead to rape).

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Alex Belits]

An SUV Dwarf, you say? What, pray tell, does one of those horrible creatures look like?

Post this to 4chan, and in a week Encyclopedia Dramatica will have a whole page of pictures portraying SUV Dwarves in all imaginable and unimaginable contexts.

Re:Again paranoia rules the roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Her: "I had sex with that 18-year-old, Tommy, who lives next door." You: "Dang, I asked you not to do that, and explained what the long-term consequences are. Why'd you do it?" Her: "Well, it felt pretty good. Plus he gave me an iPod."

How about making that conversation a bit less perfectly crafted to suit your argument?

Her: "I had sex with that 18-year-old, Tommy, who lives next door."
You: "Dang, I asked you not to do that, and explained what the long-term consequences are. Why'd you do it?"
Her: "He's hot and it's not like I love him. And we used a condom."

Now, do you still feel that your "innocent" daughter who may very well be a year or two into puberty is completely without guilt? What if instead of a 12 year old and an 18 year old it was a 14 year old and a 20 year old? What about 16 and 22? or 18 and 24? 18 and 25? 16 and 25? Where is your arbitrary limit? At what age will you acknowledge that your daughter, like all children, has hit puberty and become interested in sex? At what age will you no longer want to kill her boyfriend/sex partner?

Also, why is it ok to hold a 12 year old responsible for shoplifting and eating candy right before dinner while skipping her last class for the day but if he/she has sex with anyone under any circumstances then he/she is completely innocent and doesn't understand anything about sex?

While they're at it

[Anonymous Coward]

... they better put up a similar warning page about Chris Hansen, too. He tends to show up in all the same places as pedobear.

What a backstory

[jeffmeden]

They have taken a funny, harmless meme and created such a backstory that you just have to wonder if the people at the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's office aren't writers for Heroes.

"The Pedo Bear began as an online Japanese cartoon character, and is known for his "lecherous nature" towards prepubescent children."

From humble beginnings...

"One of the things that makes Pedobear popular is the controversy over his licentious love of little girls."

Who doesn't like a good controversy?

Not universal

[dazedNconfuzed]

Hey, most people are not aware of the latest memes. Those who know about Pedobear may know (yes, tautology) but most people don't. Nice that the Sheriff does issue at least an explanation with appropriate warning. And yes, most people find jokes about pedophilia not funny, and don't want such material anywhere near their kids.

Re:Not universal

[Scrameustache]

Nice that the Sheriff does issue at least an explanation with appropriate warning.

You misspelled "hysterical".

Re:Not universal

[Dunbal]

"latest memes" meaning things at least 3 or more years old... You have failed the internet.

Re:Not universal

[Hatta]

And yes, most people find jokes about pedophilia not funny

Are you sure? Most people I've asked found this sketch hilarous.

Re:Not universal

[Anonymous Coward]

Baaahahah. Pedobear approves.

What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scat Rat, Futa Cow, Shota Tiger, Yuri Bunny, Guro Dragon, S&M Horse, Furry Sheep, Yaoi Cock, Hetero Dog & Watersports Pig?

Do they not even warrant a warning?

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[scourfish]

This seriously sounds like it could be the boss lineup for a Megaman X game.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Megaman xXx, obviously.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Megaman XXX?

I shudder to think what weapons you would acquire.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[dbet]

Sounds like a great photoshop contest to imagine all of them showing up at the same party.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[sharkey]

Poor Bukkake Badger, always left out :(

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kinds of unique Abilities would Mega-man pick up from such a crowd? And the levels have to be modeled after the Boss Avatars...and then you have that whole boss mechanic where one boss's weapon is strong vs another...

And what would the big bad guy look like, Dr Wiley or Sigma...I mean, we've got most of the possible known fetishes right there....GAH!!!?

Oh God, Oh God, Oh Sweet Mother of Merciful Jesus, that is not a place my mind wishes to go today.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Don't worry, Canonical will eventually get around to using that as an Ubuntu release name.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Mega Man XXX, right?

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 34!
Now!

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Kjella]

Clever Clandestine, however hardly an actual practical possibility. These titles lack linguistic characteristics critical to the release recognition.

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally read that to the beat of "We Didn't Start the Fire"

Re:What about Pedobears friends?

[gstoddart]

Scat Rat, Futa Cow, Shota Tiger, Yuri Bunny, Guro Dragon, S&M Horse, Furry Sheep, Yaoi Cock, Hetero Dog & Watersports Pig?

There's at least five words in there that I don't know what they mean and that I'm afraid to google.

Isin't it obvious?

[Steauengeglase]

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's dept are in the for the lolz.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[Scrameustache]

This summary is blatantly false after even only thirty seconds of looking at its links - for example:

The Pedo Bear began as an online Japanese cartoon character, and is known for his "lecherous nature" towards prepubescent children.
Recently, pedophiles have adopted the bear as a mascot.

The summary omits that transition part, wherein the only valid application of Pedobear is that of a joke, and pedophiles haven't picked it up and ran with it.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Which pedophiles, when, and where? Be precise, name names.
Once you're done with that, look up what "FUD" means, you'll obviously learn new things.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[bistromath007]

Pedobear has always been their mascot. That's what he's for. It is also a wholly vacuous truth, they can't "use him" to gain access or anything else any more than a baseball team can use a giant chicken steal second.

Re:sadly

[uncanny]

but not suprisingly

Damn you Mickey Mouse!

[Anonymous Coward]

He used to hug me all the time at DisneyLand! Now I know what is hiding under his cute face and non-threatening appearance!

Forget the rain.. lookout for the showers!

[Striikerr]

"I look forward to the bulletin warning parents about the dangers of children playing in Chocolate Rain."

I'd be more concerned with playing in golden showers than chocolate rain..

Re:Forget the rain.. lookout for the showers!

[SleazyRidr]

Don't eat that yellow snow!

Re:sadly

[Scrameustache]

PEDO BEAR is becoming a tool for pedophile to use.

I have doubts about the certainty of your fears. Do you have proof? You wouldn't just be saying that based on absolutely nothing, would you?

Oblig. Red vs. Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Doc: I'm a pacifist.
Caboose: Your a thing that babies suck on....
Tucker: No dude, you mean a pedophile.

Re:Oblig. Red vs. Blue

[bluefoxlucid]

And the medic is a pussyfest!

So I just have to put the decal on my car window

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

and I can get out of all those volunteer jobs they make us parents do at our kids' school? Sweet!

Glad they're representing SLO

[drexlor]

Now I know what people will think of when they see where I went to college.

Re:Glad they're representing SLO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your own damn fault if you were dumb enough to go to COW POLY. (Unless you are a Cuesta or Handcock student, in which case I offer my sincere apologies)

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[bluefoxlucid]

samzenpus

Oh that's a great idea. We should have Samus Aran running the anti-molestation guard!

This makes perfect sense, knowing SLO Sheriff...

[Bjorn_Redtail]

This is obviously an attempt to stereotype all bears as pedophiles. This might make it politically easier to allow the hunting of brown and black bears in the county. It would also humiliate and shame the Downtown Association's bear that appears at farmers' market, helping to reduce the amount of "organic produce" in the county. Plus, it would allow the SLO Sheriff to seize the bear fountain in downtown SLO city, because it's "Just like the one that I [one of the deputies] wanted". Plus, it helps distract from other pressing issues. In fact, it makes a whole lot of sense for the Sheriff to issue an APB on pedobear.

Coming soon

[rolando2424]

"He knows the rules. Do you? An introduction to Rickroll"

Huh?

[Dunbal]

Personally I am waiting for the demonization of USB cables... That's what you REALLY have to look out for. I'll show you later.

They don't know it's a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear from the "bulletin" that these sheriffs don't understand that pedobear is a joke used by non-pedophiles. They think pedobear is some kind of signal that pedophiles use to communicate with each other. They even think that the existence of someone in a pedobear costume is an indication that pedophiles are around. I doubt most pedophiles are too eager to advertise their presence.

Doesn't use it often?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she's from Wasilla, AK, and it's only the tenth time she's used it.

It's been a whole year, and a whole bottle of Yukon Jack. Despite this, she remembers the visible spectrum, minus a few critical details.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[AvitarX]

The pamphlet makes an unsubstantiated claim.

The doesn't mean the response shouldn't have some substantiation. I admit it is hard to prove a negative, but i personally will not do the research to see if he is used as an icon for pedos to identify each-other (sounds unlikely, as it would lead to too many mis identifications).

the guy handing out candy at comic con was a joke obviously though. There is an actual claim being made in the article that they are finding him in investigations, but how much is not known.

Think in the context of small children

[DreamArcher]

Yes, we all get the joke and I agree it's funny/harmless in an all adult context. However children have not developed those skills. I'm sure Pedobear at Comiccon had no intention of molesting children but it exactly personifies the problem. No matter how funny/harmless it is, or how much we as adults get the joke, it's not appropriate to hand out candy to small children and reinforce the notion that it's ok for them to accept gifts from friendly looking people. Small children are not going to get the joke no matter how much we might.

Re:Think in the context of small children

[HTH NE1]

I'm sure Pedobear at Comiccon had no intention of molesting children

Not according to the captioner of the last photo on the first fine article: "[Picture of dangerous child sex predator in a Pedobear costume at Comic Con by Orazyio]" Just because he's in costume and not otherwise identifiable in the photo (accompanying article calls him "young man"), does that mean they can get away with such libel? They didn't even use the word "alleged"!

Who is responsible for that caption: Orazyio? Gawker? Vallywag? the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department?

Re:Think in the context of small children

[moderatorrater]

You mean the child being held by his father, who was obviously in on the joke and okay with his child getting the candy?

Re:sadly

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I heard that at some point you could post pictures to 4chan concatenated with a rar file (the extra data would just be ignored and a picture displayed) and a pedobear picture was used sometimes to exchange pictures of dubious morality. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, this is just something I heard in a 4chan thread so it could be bullshit but it certainly sounds plausible enough.

Tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tax dollars at work

Indeed they are at work, if you're the one on the receiving end. From the top of the power pyramid all the way down to the local sheriff, as long as the money is passing through your hands, you are in a position to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. THAT is why government loves to spend money on failure and pointlessness -- they still win.

i actually live in San Luis Obispo

[Anonymous Coward]

and plan on dressing as pedobear for halloween this year. it's funny because i produced a fairly successful meme mashup (Happiest Wedding Cry) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwIl3D-tBHY and when I DJ downtown, I am friendly with the police officers who watch the streets outside the club. I play my meme mashup and nobody seems to mind... What's next? Warning against tit slapping DJ's?

- C.FLO

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[camperdave]

...any more than a baseball team can use a giant chicken steal second.

Well, they could, but the game would be delayed until the chicken returned it.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[trentblase]

I assume that samzenpus is a pedophile and can attest that neither he or his sexually deviant buddies use pedobear except as an internet joke.

Pedobear in Atlanta

[shambalagoon]

Pedobear appeared at Dragon Con in Atlanta a few weeks ago, too. It was a different costume than the one shown. He had a "free hugs" sign and when a grown-up would hug him, he'd flip the sign over to say "too old". Here's a picture, about 1/3 of the way down: http://www.epbot.com/2010/09/dragoncon-costume-gallery-3.html

Troll

[JLDohm]

Well done San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department, you have pulled off the best troll ever.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[BobMcD]

I assume that samzenpus is a pedophile and can attest that neither he or his sexually deviant buddies use pedobear except as an internet joke.

I almost, almost, almost went there. Glad to see someone else drew that conclusion, because that really is just about the only position one could take to refute this claim. Hilarity ensues...

Evil Pedobear

[Dexter Herbivore]

But hasn't he molested OVER 9000! children?

Re:Evil Pedobear

[Tetsujin]

But hasn't he molested OVER 9000! children?

...8000 in the original Japanese...

Obvious troll is obvious

[stevegee58]

Or maybe they just did it for the lulz.

All I can say is...

[a42]

...ceiling cat had better beware.

Paranoia Bear

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I have seen images of that cartoon bear pop up on ICanHasCheezburger related sites (Failblog, etc). The way I have seen it used is more of a joking representation of the irrational PARANOIA itself that surrounds this entire topic. To think that identifies anybody is pure stupidity. If these idiots haven't already, they should have their pictures pasted all over Failblog.

BTW, I like the suggestion in the comments of TFA that suggest a new "Fucktard Bear" meme. I can see that applying to many, many people.

SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Entity

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I've been living around SLO now for six years or so. The Sherriff's Department is in a bit of an awkward position. On one hand, they have local politicians breathing down their necks to be tougher on crime. Between the Cal Poly party scene and the inevitable knee-jerk hatred of the college kids, there is definitely a sharp ideological divide between the SLOcals and the Polywags. On the other hand, there are some pretty high crime rate areas in the county (like my current town, Oceano) where violent crimes and gang activities are pretty common. Thus, the Sherriff's department is usually in a game of tug-o-war between what the county-seat residents demand (more enforcement in San Luis Obispo proper) and what is probably needed most (more enforcement in surrounding communities). As such, the Sherriff's department has to come up with a lot of unique ways of addressing odd problems.

It wouldn't surprise me if this flier was released in response to some of the SLOcals shitting bricks over something one of their teenage kids read in an internet forum. However, the Sheriff's department probably doesn't want to spend any time or manpower on the issue. So they probably released the flier to shut the local whiners up while maintaining enough autonomy to do their real jobs. For what it's worth, every time I've dealt with a Sheriff deupty here, it's been pretty pleasant. One of them helped scrape me off the road when I crashed my motorcycle, and even gave me a ride home when I refused to go to the hospital. Another couple of them recognize me when I am jogging now and wave and say hi if they are outside of their cars. I've never had them stop me for trivial bullshit. I've never had them stop me period. It's always been SLO PD and the CHP that give me shit over ridiculous stuff.

All in all, SLO county is a delightfully weird place to live. the SLO folk are so hell bent about maintaining a nice community that they pass all sorts of batshit insane, jerk off laws. For instance, just this year a city-wide ban on smoking was enacted. You can't smoke anywhere in public now, or within 20 feet of another person's residence. So if you smoke, you're screwed. Then there was the measure that made it so noise ordinance violations could be classified as "unruly gatherings" and, rather than simply fining the offenders, all members present can now be criminally prosecuted and arrested. As such, I'd hate to work for the Sheriff's department. They are stuck between trying to prevent real crimes (like the constant stabbings in Oceano, or the poaching of wildlife up in Cayucos) and pandering to a bunch of rich whiny twats that want to create the "perfect community." It's strange.

Doug Stanhope

[ThatsNotPudding]

has some honest and true insights on this topic. In a less-blue approach, lies about widespread pedophilia and prevalent terrorism are the twin horns the inevitable police state are being built upon. And because of religion and accelerating stupidity as prophesied in Idiocracy, there is no stopping it.

Re:sadly

[Esospopenon]

I'm not sure about rar files, but I do know it's possible to concatenate a zip file to the end of a gif file. This because the gif header includes the length of the image so displaying the image would work, and likewise extraction of the compressed files worked because zip stores the header and the file index at the end of the file. The result was that neighter format would interfere with the other one.

Chris Hansen...

[Itesh]

has his next prime time special, "To Catch a PedoBear"

the only good cops r PUSHIN UP DA DAISIES

[AnAdventurer]

Just shows that cops can ruin any joke

Sherrif's department relying on stock photos

[sabt-pestnu]

Curiously enough, at least one of the pictures on the Sherrif's poster is from the 2009 Comicon, not this year's event.

So how is this "recently spotted"? They kick him out this year, they didn't last year? And it's obvious Comic con security had no issue with him.

Olympics mascot

[sourcerror]

Does it mean that he'll no longer be the 2010 winter olympics mascot?

http://boingboing.net/2010/02/06/pedobear-official-ma.html

As a SLO Resident...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. This doesn't really surprise me though...the police departments in this area are frequently overzealous.

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[mmaniaci]

Holy jesus I was going to post almost an exact duplicate of yours. I lived in SLO proper for 5 years while going to school and I must say that the town is absolutely crazy. Its a great place to visit--fun shops, beaches nearby, the school, extensive bro culture (alright, that last one was a joke)--but the amount of bullshit the cops give everyone along with the ridiculous laws like the smoking ban were enough to make me move away forever.

I was once pulled over and fined $180 for riding my bike with headphones on. Three of my friends have been arrested for drunk in public just because they were stumbling a bit on their walk home. Cops show up at most every party at exactly 10:00pm to issue $300 fines for first offense, and they double every time after that (the frats full of rich white guys are immune, though). There is a vigilante program run by the police called "SNAPS" that employs students to spy on parties. The Cal Poly PD is SLOPD, yet they are allowed to make a profit off of parking and traffic violating on campus (yes, the campus is a public institution but that money should go towards the school to better the parking situation).

And every summer the town is flooded by an army of retired, driving around in their aluminum boats. They make their way the wrong way down one way streets, they drive into groups of people walking in a cross walk on an unprotected left turn, and they blow countless stop signs to the dismay of the local cyclists. Their tour buses block entire roads and the packs they travel in on foot show no regard to traffic signs (WALK or DONT WALK) but the cops don't care. The whole community doesn't care and doesn't realize that most of the money coming into the town is from the college and the young students who attend. But as long as time continues to pass and the youth inevitably become the elders, this situation wont change. Those damn kids are just rampaging around with nothing but disdain, incarcerate them all I say!

Re:sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible. As esospopenon said, certain files are put together, you can append, say, a RAR file to the end of a JPG file and both will be readable, depending on what you're looking for (change the file extension).

This was used for 4chan's Lithursday when people would put eBooks (TXT, DOC, PDF) into a RAR file, combine it with a JPG, and upload them to share books (since 4chan only allows image uploads on the vast majority of boards, /po/ and /f/ notwithstanding). Of course, you could use it for more malicious purposes like child porn or Rickrolling or pretending it's child porn but it's actually a Rickroll.

Embedded files were later disallowed, but I don't know if that is still in effect after the server software was modified a couple months ago. There were ways to get around it in the first place.

There was a thread on the /a/nime board about MP3 JPGs: the image would be a splash screen of the show and it would say something to the effect of "OPEN ME IN WINAMP." When done so, Winamp would only look at the MP3 part of the file and would play the theme song of the show. It was pretty neat.

You can read more here: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File_Synthesis (NSFW)

Natural Habitat

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most animals, Pedobear will, on occasion, venture out of it's natural habitat to satisfy it's necessities.

Pedobear's main needs are children, and lulz.

In the photographs shown, it appears to be seeking lulz, and isn't a danger to anyone.

It satisfies most of it's other needs in it's natural habitat; your children's bedroom with the computer and webcam.

To disserve and terrorize

[The Archon V2.0]

cute face and non-threatening appearance negate the truth of his sinister, much darker side.

Number of actual children Pedobear has molested: 0.

Number of actual children "respectable" people with power have molested: Seemingly infinite.

Might want to focus on the proven danger there, Mr. Police Officer.

We have gone from a society of doers to a society of press-releasers. Welcome to the empire's fall, kids. Enjoy the bread and circuses.

Pedobear is and should be associated with the internet and pedophiles/sexually-preferential offenders who reportedly use him to communicate their interests in young children to each other.

I love that. The entire point of the document is to FEAR THE BEAR! but their evidence can be summed up as panic-panic-guy-over-there-seen-with-a-kid-REPORTEDLY-child-molester-panic-panic.

So one guy in a suit in public surrounded by cameras watching his every move = advanced agent for the Pedophile Illuminati? I can see some cop sitting inside HQ and cuddling his gun, gibbering "First the queers ruined rainbows and now the baby-rapers are ruining teddy bears!"

And if I was part of some secret and highly illegal group that needed a way of identifying members I don't think I would use the one thing in the entire universe that people associate with the illegal activity in question.

may be an indicator of the presence of individuals who have a predilection to sexually inappropriate, or even assaultive behavior

Translation: We will use it as a justification to kick down your door, terrorize your family, and shoot your dog in the middle of the night. Saves us having to make up an "anonymous tip" and finds you guilty in the eyes of the potential jury pool all at once!

"Beware the Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, and child pornographers. Seems like you can scare any public into allowing the government to do anything with those four." - Bruce Schneier.

Re:To disserve and terrorize

[cheekyjohnson]

"We have gone from a society of doers to a society of press-releasers."

No, we've gone from a society of brainwashed tools to... a society of brainwashed tools. It's the same thing over and over. Ban porn, violent video games, violent comic books, and censor the internet! Censor swear words and naked bodies, too, because those "hurt the children!" These people who deem everything that they don't like "indecent" have always been around, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt wherever they go.

A guy on a forum I frequent....

[Vr6dub]

A guy on a forum I frequent has a printing shop. He sent the police department of box of pedobear stickers! Showed a picture of the delivery confirmation as well.

Re:A guy on a forum I frequent....

[Anonymous Coward]

epic win.

for great justice.

And all of that...

Paranoia is good

[Ilgaz]

I was wondering around on Youtube. Some teen star got amazing amount of views and he is constantly attacked by some self made gang. As there was nothing else to do and Youtube's "live comments" really may look like some genuine sitcom, I kept watching.
There were were mysterious people around, who should not be a teen boy stars fans and shouldn't be hanging around on particular video's comments. When I saw one trying to set some deeper conversation with some teen/kid (naturally), I had to say "careful, lots of strange things happening over comments" and that idiot went off.
If there were couple of Sheriffs or cops around to figure the same thing (and they are pros, let me remind) and those perverts figured they were probably watching or even setting up traps for them, they wouldn't try to talk some 12 year old girls about their personal life.
Let me remind you, these people are mentally sick, they aren't stupid or morons. People always confuse the sick with stupid.

Re:sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is quite easy actually. You take a .png or .gif image and concatenate it with a .zip or .rar archive (the archive at the back) and if you give it the image extension it only opens as an image, if you give it the archive extension it opens as the archive.
This sort of "images" were banned from 4chan, but their checking is crude and can be easily circumvented. Using a .rar archive, one must simply open the concatenated file in a hex editor and search for the string "Rar" and change it to something else (usually "Bar"). This makes the archive unusable and thus avoids the filter, while keeping the image unchanged. If you then undo this change in the same way, the archive becomes usable again.

Re:sadly

[Scrameustache]

something I heard in a 4chan thread so it could be bullshit but it certainly sounds plausible enough.

The thing is that pedobear is used to EXPOSE (and mock... ok, mostly mock) any hint of pedoness, so real pedos would be reaaaaaaly dumb to hide their pedobooty with a tech trick and then stamp a big "hey everyone, this shit is pedoshit" picture on it.

Then again, cops like to set up honeypots for really dumb criminals, so maybe this is the new "you've won a free boat!" trick.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[Scrameustache]

There is an actual claim being made in the article that they are finding him in investigations, but how much is not known.

If they are investigatin based on the assumption that pedobear pictures means real pedos, then they will find pedobear pictures in their investigations of pedobear pictures.
And they are not above using this tautological vicious cycle as justification for itself.

It's unsubstantiated claims all the way down.

Re:They say it STARTED as a joke

[seandiggity]

...any more than a baseball team can use a giant chicken steal second. Well, they could, but the game would be delayed until the chicken returned it.

I don't know whether I love or hate the fact that you're modded "3, Informative" right now.

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[drexlor]

Don't forget the new unruly gathering violation. If you are caught with over 20 people in the same property the cops issue a $700 fine on the spot and notify the landlords. The landlords then have the option to evict you ASAP or they get fined $500.
Also we're not allowed to feed the ducks any more at Laguna :[

In Soviet playground....

[GodfatherofSoul]

Pedobear looks for an intro into YOU!

MOD PARENT UP

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Funny as all get out. Thanks, I needed that.

APB on Hamburglar

[SnowDog74]

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office: Antiquated Memes Division's next case will involve Hamburglar and his doppelganger, H.R. Pufnstuf. This cold case has been unsolved for more than 20 years.

Rest assured, however, the SLOC Sheriff's Office: Antiquated Memes Division is determined to get to the bottom of it!

Yesterday's News

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooold. Keep up with the internet, Slashdot. Come on.

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[commodoresloat]

For instance, just this year a city-wide ban on smoking was enacted

In Oceano? Yet they still let people drive their trucks right on the beach?

correct

[Anonymous Coward]

theres actually been studies that conclude that the degree of left leaning political philosophy correllates with increasing intelligence.

Re:correct

[Anne Thwacks]

Let me guess ... studies done by left-leaning academics?

Or may be the universities whos research showed "children learn" or "alcohol makes students drunk"?

"A study" may not be the same as a "meaningful and credible study". YMMV

nobody would ever have a problem with Shota Tiger

[Wain13001]

Hot older chicks who sleep with young boys don't get into trouble.

It's Shotacat they have to worry about.

If you only knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in SLO for the last 20 years. San Luis Obispo City is the county seat of San Luis Obispo County. Every Thursday night, they shut down the main drag in SLO City for "Farmer's Market". It's a big deal, family friendly mixture of live entertainment, eating and shopping, put on by the SLO Downtown Association. Among the attractions sponsored by the SLODA is a person dressed in the costume of a local animal. For the last 20 years this costumed character has been a mainstay at the Farmer's Market, hugging children from the age of 1 to 21. I've had pictures of my daughter taken with him on countless occasions. He's named "Downtown Brown", and as you've probably guessed by now, he's a Brown Bear. You can see a picture of him at http://www.downtownslo.com/images/promotions/promo_downtown_brown_bday.jpg (he's the one in the middle, although they've changed the costume since this one was taken, he's a darker brown these days).

Re:If you only knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

With a name like "downtown brown", he's obviously the mascot of anal sex and probably one of pedobear's accomplices.

Pedobear joins the SLO Sheriffs Dept

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.slosheriff.org/Community.aspx - middle picture showing PB in his squad car

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[sanermind]

"You can't smoke anywhere in public now, or within 20 feet of another person's residence.

You're confused somewhere.

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy died wearing headphones while riding his bike over train tracks (hit by a train) next to Mustang Village, before they had the train signal there (or so a story went).

I think the $180 fine is worth it in that case.

Joke about crime = Terrorist

[freeworldtech]

Clearly people who make jokes about crime on the internet are terrorists and should be brought down. We need more funding for law enforcement to shut down these conventions that promote the internet's viral distribution of humor and social commentary. We should be developing technologies to track people who download pictures of Pedobear then arrest them and offer then threaten to incarcerate them for decades if they don't give up the person they got the picture from. We should also take a serious look at wiretapping their phones to find out if they are talking about Pedobear when they are offline. We must prevent this person to person communication from overflowing from the internet into the real world and dilute the true and balanced systems of distributing knowledge to the masses such as CNN and Fox News. We must act now!

Idle STILL broken!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix this shit, fuckers!

Webpage error details

User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; SLCC2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C)
Timestamp: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:40:21 UTC

Message: 'undefined' is null or not an object
Line: 1
Char: 2116
Code: 0
URI: http://a.fsdn.com/sd/comments-minified.js?T_2_5_0_303b

The PTA Reign Of Rumor Begins!

[cmholm]

Now that my "child" is off to college to figure out the adult living thing, I don't have to deal with the crank fear-mongering first hand, but I know it's out there.

Back in my parent-o-elementary-child days, whether AZ or HI, a new self-published tract warning of the latest insidious threat to our children would make its way as a wave through PTA and school inboxes every month or so.

So, it'll be a given that the SLOC Sheriff's love note will become a small tsunami, stuffing every US (and some Canadian) parent's physical and virtual mail box by Halloween.

Too bad it hasn't rated an entry in snopes.com, yet, so that a few plugged-in parents can get their heads back on straight.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe some people in San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department are /b/tards and made the bulletin for the lulz.

re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a troll tactic: meme up some sort of g-rated family friendly identical twin for pedobear. You've got the wrong guy! I'm snugglebear- we just look the same!

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that riding a bike with headphones is potentially unsafe, I don't generally think it's the job of the police to protect people from themselves.

problem is...

[WeeBit]

Many will still believe this BS. Even after they retract on page 7 in fine print, in their local paper.

It keeps getting better...

[surveyork]

Pedobear Panic Hits Tulsa, Oklahoma
/facepalm

Re:SLO Sheriff's Department is An Interesting Enti

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like the set of Veronica Mars.

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

who else would the study be done by, other than left-leaning academics? What other sort of academics are there?

Re:sadly

[Alex Belits]

That probably worked at some point, but now 4chan detects this and block all images with extra data.
It's still possible to post a PNG or GIF image with image data being a file in a different format -- then it will look like static and turn into the hidden file if converted to a raw image format.

Police become yet again more redundant

[tengeta]

The article should say instead: "The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department knows that Pedobear is an Internet joke, but that hasn't stopped them from becoming a joke themselves." I mean seriously, you could be using those resources to actually bust real pedophiles and they do this? Good job policemen, way to earn your bailout money.