Dad holidaying with daughter wrongly accused of paedophilia

[shrunken]

You're cute when you're cunty.

Cool it with the dreamy eyes pal. Whatta I look like, your daughter?!

[Mistame]

Cool it with the dreamy eyes pal. Whatta I look like, your daughter?!

I wasn't originally going to give you credit here, but this is pretty fucking funny. Well played! :P

[Pann]

Okay, so you are being obtuse.

Am I? An adult who is attracted children who has no intention of acting on their attraction would not be trying to pick children up online thus would not be in danger of being entrapped by the police. Or are you suggesting that the police somehow trick them in to going to chat rooms to try to pick up children?

Hey, at least I'm not defending perverts who try to abuse children.

And you seem awfully determined to express your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Do I? You've repeatedly tried to defend those who have been caught by police officers posing as children online.

Because it's not necessary in-country in the U.S. It's not the role of hotel staff to verify parenthood.

You are aware that there are countries other than the US? And whilst it is not law in the UK it seems like common sense to take ID for your children when staying in a hotel.

Perhaps, but that's not the problem of a guy vacationing with his daughter.

Really? Are you sure that you are a parent? Well it is his problem as Travelodge have a policy of asking for a child's ID and he wanted to stay in a Travelodge.

I think they should watch for suspicious behavior. If the "child" seems to be under duress, etc, then they should call the authorities. I do not think it's their place to request a child's ID, nor proof of parenthood for no reason. Now if they have a company policy of requiring every adult, regardless of gender, traveling with a child or children to provide the identification for both the adult and child(ren), and proof of parenthood/guardianship then that's a different story. But singling out a man with his teen daughter because "OMG HE CUD B PREDATURZ" is just stupid.

How are the hotel staff to know that they were father and daughter? They do have a company policy to ask for the ID of every child staying in their hotels but don't let facts of anything get in the way of your persecution complex.

I think the implication that I'm anything other than a man with his daughter is enough for someone to get knocked out. I won't be singled out or insulted because "BUT DAH CHILRINZ".

Wow, you sound like a real tough guy! What a role model you are! Honestly if you think being asked for ID for child is a reason to knock out someone who is just doing their job then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

- - - Updated - - -

"Shit! I was wrong in front of everyone! Man, what should I do now? I know, I'll try to act like a smartass, no one will see that coming! Yep, smooth sailing from here." -Pann, 2017

Oh no, what I am to do? But it is interesting what kind of a pervert a person is, is of relevance to you. Well... by interesting I mean weird...

[Noradin]

Am I? An adult who is attracted children who has no intention of acting on their attraction would not be trying to pick children up online thus would not be in danger of being entrapped by the police. Or are you suggesting that the police somehow trick them in to going to chat rooms to try to pick up children?

They might try to talk and pester them into it, though.
That is what entrapment means in regards to the police.

[Pann]

They might try to talk and pester them into it, though.
That is what entrapment means in regards to the police.

What? Although I have no experience in this matter I would imagine that a chat room with children (or police officers pretending to be children) is the last place that a man (or woman) who is attracted to children but has no intention of acting on that attraction would go. But what do I know?

But thank you for the pointless and not at all relevant to my point education on what entrapment means.

[Mistame]

Am I?

Clearly, as you've still yet to grasp what "entrapment" is. I explained it on the previous page. Try reading. Or, you know, a dictionary.

An adult who is attracted children who has no intention of acting on their attraction would not be trying to pick children up online thus would not be in danger of being entrapped by the police.

No, they wouldn't be trying to pick up children online.

Or are you suggesting that the police somehow trick them in to going to chat rooms to try to pick up children?

You're almost there. You can do it!

Hey, at least I'm not defending perverts who try to abuse children.

Neither am I. But hey, way to double down on your stupid.

Do I? You've repeatedly tried to defend those who have been caught by police officers posing as children online.

No, I haven't. Learn to read.

Really? Are you sure that you are a parent? Well it is his problem as Travelodge have a policy of asking for a child's ID and he wanted to stay in a Travelodge.

Seems like they singled him out and sprung it on him. If he'd known that he needed his daughter's ID lest he be accused of being something other than a father, he would have brought it.

How are the hotel staff to know that they were father and daughter?

I mean, that is the logic deduction. Unless, of course, it's common for them to get child predators coming to their hotel, in which case they should probably just shut down.

Wow, you sound like a real tough guy!

I am. Not sure how that's relevant.

Honestly if you think being asked for ID for child is a reason to knock out someone who is just doing their job then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

I'm not explaining this again. If you're too dense to comprehend the context of my comments, you should just stop responding.

But thank you for the pointless and not at all relevant to my point education on what entrapment means.

It's exactly relevant. But please, hand-wave away.

[Pann]

Clearly, as you've still yet to grasp what "entrapment" is. I explained it on the previous page. Try reading. Or, you know, a dictionary.

I am fully aware what entrapment means I am however struggling to see how it fits your argument that people trying to groom children online are being entrapped.

No, they wouldn't be trying to pick up children online.

So what are these poor men doing then when they inadvertently try to groom police officers instead of children?

You're almost there. You can do it!

So the police do trick the poor perverts into going online to try to pick up children? Wow that is some paranoia.

Neither am I. But hey, way to double down on your stupid.

Sure sounds like you are.

No, I haven't. Learn to read.

Uhm, yes, you have. You've even claimed that is some kind of police conspiracy in the very post where you claim not to be defending them. Perhaps it is your inability to articulate your point rather than my ability to read that is at fault here?

Seems like they singled him out and sprung it on him. If he'd known that he needed his daughter's ID lest he be accused of being something other than a father, he would have brought it.

Does it? How do you know? You're just making things up. He wasn't accused of anything he was asked to provide ID for his daughter for most people this is a perfectly normal request.

I mean, that is the logic deduction. Unless, of course, it's common for them to get child predators coming to their hotel, in which case they should probably just shut down.

What? You are not making sense. How do they know the familial relationship from just looking at two people? Are you seriously suggesting that they just ignore the prospect that a child might be in danger? Wow!

I am. Not sure how that's relevant.

I am not sure of its relevance either but you've repeatedly stated you'd knock someone out so I guess you think it impresses someone.

I'm not explaining this again. If you're too dense to comprehend the context of my comments, you should just stop responding.

Aw. Explaining again would imply you've offered an explanation.

In what context is attempting to knock out a member of hotel staff for asking to see your child's ID ever acceptable? It is ironic that you, as someone who thinks physically attacking someone for asking a question is somehow the appropriate response, would call someone else "dense".

It's exactly relevant. But please, hand-wave away.

It is not at all relevant. People who have no intention of acting upon their impulses are not going to visit chat rooms to try to groom children thus they are in no danger of being entrapped by the police. You seem to have a really strange definition of entrapment.

[Mistame]

I am fully aware what entrapment means I am however struggling to see how it fits your argument that people trying to groom children online are being entrapped.

The only thing you're struggling with is critical thinking, as I never made that argument.

So what are these poor men doing then when they inadvertently try to groom police officers instead of children?

Again, can you not read? I said if cops are posing as "victims" and attempting to manipulate someone into acting in a way they normally wouldn't that is entrapment. Literally.

So the police do trick the poor perverts into going online to try to pick up children? Wow that is some paranoia.

I'm really not sure why you insist on being so obtuse, but someone going online and/or going into chat rooms does not automatically mean that they're trying to "groom children". You have to actually establish that is the case in order to even make that argument.

Sure sounds like you are.

Uhm, yes, you have. You've even claimed that is some kind of police conspiracy in the very post where you claim not to be defending them. Perhaps it is your inability to articulate your point rather than my ability to read that is at fault here?

All this tells me is that your ability to parse coherent logic is flawed. Pointing out a possible discrepancy in how an operation is carried out does not imply support for the subject of that operation or his/her actions. Next you'll say that anyone who objects to the police shooting someone they suspect of murder without bothering to arrest them and give them a fair trial is themselves a "murderer". The authorities have to follow the rules and should be held accountable if they fail to do so.

Does it? How do you know? You're just making things up. He wasn't accused of anything he was asked to provide ID for his daughter for most people this is a perfectly normal request.

He clearly didn't know he needed to prove he was her father or he would have brought proof. That's a pretty logical deduction. And they called the authorities before they even asked him for proof. That alone is an indirect accusation and it's insulting.

What? You are not making sense. How do they know the familial relationship from just looking at two people? Are you seriously suggesting that they just ignore the prospect that a child might be in danger? Wow!

Rational people don't look at every man as though they're a pedophile, even when they're with a young girl. This type of mentality is inherently wrong. And no, they shouldn't ignore the possibility, but it's not exactly difficult to tell when a child is under duress. Use some common sense. It's really not that hard.

I am not sure of its relevance either but you've repeatedly stated you'd knock someone out so I guess you think it impresses someone.

Just a statement of fact. What others think of it is irrelevant.

Aw. Explaining again would imply you've offered an explanation.

In what context is attempting to knock out a member of hotel staff for asking to see your child's ID ever acceptable? It is ironic that you, as someone who thinks physically attacking someone for asking a question is somehow the appropriate response, would call someone else "dense".

Implying that someone may be a "sex predator", even if they're not, is inherently degrading. Asking for proof of parenthood, out of the blue, from someone who was clearly not expecting such a request is the equivalent of such an accusation. Again, not a difficult concept to grasp.

It is not at all relevant. People who have no intention of acting upon their impulses are not going to visit chat rooms to try to groom children thus they are in no danger of being entrapped by the police. You seem to have a really strange definition of entrapment.

It is relevant because you're ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly specified behavior on the part of the authorities that constitutes entrapment, yet you keep insisting that I'm calling situations where actual predators are actively seeking out victims and the authorities are catching them in the act "entrapment", which is a false narrative on your part.

It is perfectly conceivable for someone who has an innate attraction to teenage girls, for example, and no intent to act upon it, to be minding their own business, perhaps chatting with others of a similar disorder, and be approached by an officer posing as a teenage girl who then manipulates or coerces them into questionable conversation and/or meeting in person for the sole purpose of arresting them. This would be entrapment, literally. On the other hand, if the officer was minding their own business and a predator approached them in the same manner, this would not be entrapment.

[Pann]

Again, can you not read? I said if cops are posing as "victims" and attempting to coerce someone into acting in a way they normally wouldn't that is entrapment. Literally.

I am not sure why you brought this up in the first place or why you keep trying to place the blame for the actions of online child abusers with the police.

I'm really not sure why you insist on being so obtuse, but someone going online and/or going into chat rooms does not automatically mean that they're trying to "groom children". You have to actually establish that is the case in order to even make that argument.

I never said that it did, that's that paranoia again. I don't have to establish anything. You're the one that made the ridiculous argument that men were supposedly being entrapped by police on the internet.

All this tells me is that your ability to parse coherent logic is flawed. Pointing out a possible discrepancy in how an operation is carried out does not imply support for the subject of that operation or his/her actions. Next you'll say that anyone who objects to the police shooting someone they suspect of murder without bothering to arrest them and give them a fair trial is themselves a "murderer".

Does it really? At this point in time I really don't think you understand what is or is not entrapment. Also I am not sure why you need the word murderer in quotation marks since this part of a bizarre fantasy of yours.

He clearly didn't know he needed to prove he was her father or he would have brought proof. That's a pretty logical deduction. And they called the authorities before they even asked him for proof. That alone is an indirect accusation and it's insulting.

And no one is disputing that he did not know he needed to bring ID. According to Mr Darwell "We checked in and then I had to move my car" at this point in time the staff do not know if he is moving his car or dropping the girl to be involved in sex trafficking, like the gang in this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...king-gang.html

It appears to be an unfortunate misunderstanding that "...took them about two seconds to realise he had got the wrong end of the stick..." However it could have been avoided by taking a few seconds to pack some ID for his daughter.

Rational people don't look at every man as though they're a pedophile, even when they're with a young girl. This type of mentality is inherently wrong. And no, they shouldn't ignore the possibility, but it's not exactly difficult to tell when a child is under duress. Use some common sense. It's really not that hard.

No one is looking at every man as if they are a paedophile, and just to return to your earlier pedantry she was 13. This type of mentality exists only in your mind.

Ok so what you are saying is that as long as the adult does a good enough job grooming the child so they don't look under duress then no one should ask any questions? Utterly ridiculous.

Just a statement of fact. What others think of it is irrelevant.

Of course it is.

Implying that someone may be a "sex predator", even if they're not, is inherently degrading. Asking for proof of parenthood, out of the blue, from someone who was clearly not expecting such a request is the equivalent of such an accusation. Again, not a difficult concept to grasp.

Asking to see a child's ID who is staying in a hotel is not implying that someone might be a sexual predator. It is not the hotel's fault Mr Darwell forgot to engage his brain when packing and was not expecting such a request.

It is relevant because you're ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly specified behavior on the part of the authorities that constitutes entrapment, yet you keep insisting that I'm calling situations where actual predators are actively seeking out victims and the authorities are catching them in the act "entrapment", which I'm not. Pay attention.

It is perfectly conceivable for someone who has an innate attraction to teenage girls, for example, and no intent to act upon it, to be minding their own business, perhaps chatting with others of a similar disorder, and be approached by an officer posing as a teenage girl who then manipulates or coerces them into questionable conversation and/or meeting in person for the sole purpose of arresting them. This would be entrapment, literally. On the other hand, if the officer was minding their own business and a predator approached them under the same circumstances, this would not be entrapment.

No it is not. Your lack of understanding as what constitutes entrapment is neither here nor there. A police officer posing online as a child is not entrapping anyone.

Perfectly conceivable in your mind but back in the real world evidence gathered in this manner is not admissible.

I have to say that your continued efforts trying to justify the actions of child sex exploiters and your objection to hotels asking to see ID for minor staying on their premises (that might help identify child sex exploitation) is really rather disturbing. And even more so considering your claim to be a parent yourself.

[Mistame]

I am not sure why you brought this up in the first place or why you keep trying to place the blame for the actions of online child abusers with the police.

I didn't.

You're the one that made the ridiculous argument that men were supposedly being entrapped by police on the internet.

I said it was possible.

Does it really? At this point in time I really don't think you understand what is or is not entrapment.

I've already explained the difference. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll still be wrong.

Also I am not sure why you need the word murderer in quotation marks since this part of a bizarre fantasy of yours.

A word in quotes implies the word is not being used seriously. Basic English and all.

And no one is disputing that he did not know he needed to bring ID. According to Mr Darwell "We checked in and then I had to move my car" at this point in time the staff do not know if he is moving his car or dropping the girl to be involved in sex trafficking, like the gang in this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...king-gang.html

And it's insulting and degrading nonetheless.

It appears to be an unfortunate misunderstanding that "...took them about two seconds to realise he had got the wrong end of the stick..." However it could have been avoided by taking a few seconds to pack some ID for his daughter.

People don't typically do things like this unless they know know they have to.

This type of mentality exists only in your mind.

It appears in any rational man's mind in cases of people falsely accusing someone of this type of behavior.

Ok so what you are saying is that as long as the adult does a good enough job grooming the child so they don't look under duress then no one should ask any questions? Utterly ridiculous.

I'm saying that the idea that people should think the worst by default, even if it's "for the children", is fucking retarded.

Asking to see a child's ID who is staying in a hotel is not implying that someone might be a sexual predator.

No, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities sure as hell is.

It is not the hotel's fault Mr Darwell forgot to engage his brain when packing and was not expecting such a request.

It's certainly not the hotel's fault that he didn't do something he didn't know he needed to. It is their fault for not informing him beforehand that he needed to, though.

Your lack of understanding as what constitutes entrapment is neither here nor there.

That's hilariously ironic, considering the stupidity of your posts for 4+ pages.

A police officer posing online as a child is not entrapping anyone.

If the subject initiates and advances the situation, no. If the officer does, however, it is. That's how that word works.

I have to say that your continued efforts trying to justify the actions of child sex exploiters and your objection to hotels asking to see ID for minor staying on their premises (that might help identify child sex exploitation) is really rather disturbing. And even more so considering your claim to be a parent yourself.

And I have to say that your continued efforts to portray my objection to people with mental disorders being manipulated into an entrapment-type situation as indicative of some sort of predatory behavior disturbing. I'm starting to wonder if I should be concerned for your mental health.

[Pann]

I didn't.

Uhm, yes you did.

They pull that shit in the U.S., too. "Cyber crimes" divisions where officers go into chat rooms and pretend to be teenagers so they can entice weak-willed men into acting in a manner that lets them boost their arrest counts.

I said it was possible.

Lots of thing are possible although many of those things have no place in this thread. So again I am not sure why you seem to believe that the police are entrapping men on the internet.

A word in quotes implies the word is not being used seriously. Basic English and all.

No a word in quotes implies that it is a quote. The clue is in the name.

And it's insulting and degrading nonetheless.

Being asked for your child's ID is not insulting or degrading.

People don't typically do things like this unless they know know they have to.

Why wouldn't a parent think to bring along ID for their child when staying a hotel? Still at least you now seem to acknowledge that children do have ID.

It appears in any rational man's mind in cases of people falsely accusing someone of this type of behavior.

No one accused anyone of this type of behaviour. You're making things up again.

I'm saying that the idea that people should think the worst by default, even if it's "for the children", is fucking retarded.

They don't. Asking for ID is not thinking the worst.

No, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities sure as hell is.

No it is not. Criminals often try to disguise their criminal behaviour and as a result perfectly innocent people sometimes behave in a manner that is similar to that of criminals. It appears that this is one of those occasions.

It's certainly not the hotel's fault that he didn't do something he didn't know he needed to. It is their fault for not informing him beforehand that he needed to, though.

I agree, they should have informed him beforehand and they have apologised to him and his daughter. However the smell of compensation is strong in the air therefore a minor issue must be reported to the tabloids.

If the subject initiates and advances the situation, no. If the officer does, however, it is. That's how that word works.

No, it really isn't. The fact that a pervert tried to groom a police officer rather than their intended target is not entrapment.

And I have to say that your continued efforts to portray my objection to people with mental disorders being manipulated into an entrapment-type situation as indicative of some sort of predatory behavior disturbing. I'm starting to wonder if I should be concerned for your mental health.

There you go again trying to excuse the behaviour of those who try to exploit children for sex. Going on the internet and trying to pick a child is not someone being manipulated.

[Mistame]

Uhm, yes you did.

No, I didn't. Nothing in what you quoted places blame on police for trying to stop actual child sex predators. It merely hints at the questionable behavior of some officers in regards to non-predatory individuals.

No a word in quotes implies that it is a quote. The clue is in the name.

It also implies a less-than-serious connotation. Learn English.

Being asked for your child's ID is not insulting or degrading.

Again, being asked for proof of parenthood and having the authorities called on you is.

Why wouldn't a parent think to bring along ID for their child when staying a hotel?

A parent who does not carry a child's ID with them all the time and/or who has never been informed of a necessity to do so will not do so. Nor should they have to unless specifically required to and informed of that requirement. This is standard human behavior.

No one accused anyone of this type of behaviour.

Again, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities is an accusation, albeit nor formally.

Asking for ID is not thinking the worst.

Yes, it is.

No it is not.

Yes, it is.

No, it really isn't. The fact that a pervert tried to groom a police officer rather than their intended target is not entrapment.

The word groom refers to the manipulation of an individual to get them to do what you want. In a scenario like I mentioned, where the "pervert" is minding his own business and a police officer starts flirting with him, hinting at sex and invites him to "her place", the officer is grooming the "pervert" and it is, in fact, entrapment.

There you go again trying to excuse the behaviour of those who try to exploit children for sex. Going on the internet and trying to pick a child is not someone being manipulated.

There you go again completely failing at basic reading comprehension. Again, if some "pervert" is minding their own business and an undercover officer plays on their mental disorder to manipulate them into behaving in a manner they wouldn't behave in normally, this is entrapment; it's illegal and it's wrong.

As far as your claim that I'm "making excuses" for predators, well, you're either trolling or an imbecile.

[Pann]

No, I didn't. Nothing in what you quoted places blame on police for trying to stop actual child sex predators. It merely hints at the questionable behavior of some officers in regards to non-predatory individuals.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot you call them weak willed men.

Again, being asked for proof of parenthood and having the authorities called on you is.

Why? Even Mr Darwell admits that it was a misunderstanding that was quickly cleared up. But let's be honest for all the hotel staff knew he could have been one those mentally ill/weak willed people that somehow get tricked into abusing children.

A parent who does not carry a child's ID with them all the time and/or who has never been informed of a necessity to do so will not do so. Nor should they have to unless specifically required to and informed of that requirement. This is standard human behavior.

No they do not, but staying in a hotel is not an everyday occurrence.

Again, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities is an accusation.

No, it is not. I explained this to you but despite the tedious nature of breaking everything down and replying to individual sentences you for some reason or another forgot to quote it.

Yes, it is.

Oh. No it's not.

Yes, it is.

He's behind you!

The word groom refers to the manipulation of an individual to get them to do what you want. In a scenario like I mentioned, where the "pervert" is minding his own business and a police officer starts flirting with him, hinting at sex and invites him to "her place", the officer is grooming the "pervert" and it is, in fact, entrapment.

The pervert is minding his own business and a police officer suddenly takes over his internet and starts flirting with him, blah, blah but he never stops to think hey this is wrong? That sounds very much like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

There you go again completely failing at basic reading comprehension. Again, if some "pervert" is minding their own business and an undercover officer plays on their mental disorder to manipulate them into behaving in a manner they wouldn't behave in normally, this is entrapment; it's illegal and it's wrong.

As far as your claim that I'm "making excuses" for predators, well, you're either trolling or an imbecile.

You appear to have a problem with concept of accepting responsibility. If the man with mental health issues, as you put it, was minding his own business he would not in chat rooms talking to children/police officers.

Yeah, that must it. Couldn't possibly be you? Could it?

[Mistame]

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot you call them weak willed men.

But let's be honest for all the hotel staff knew he could have been one those mentally ill/weak willed people that somehow get tricked into abusing children.

Your misrepresentation of the point isn't really doing you any favors.

No, it is not. I explained this to you but despite the tedious nature of breaking everything down and replying to individual sentences you for some reason or another forgot to quote it.

Oh. No it's not.

He's behind you!

An accusation, a suspicion or even a suggestion about something so horrible is inherently disrespectful and degrading. Being asked for proof of parenthood and especially having the authorities called on you falls under that umbrella. This guy apparently agrees.

The pervert is minding his own business and a police officer suddenly takes over his internet and starts flirting with him, blah, blah but he never stops to think hey this is wrong? That sounds very much like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

You clearly don't understand how mental disorders work.

You appear to have a problem with concept of accepting responsibility.

On the contrary, if someone actively seeks out a victim, they should be dealt with. But if an officer manipulates someone into acting in a manner they normally wouldn't, it's text-book entrapment. Clearly you've yet to grasp this concept.

If the man with mental health issues, as you put it, was minding his own business he would not in chat rooms talking to children/police officers.

If you weren't so busy trolling, you'd understand that if he's minding his own business, he wouldn't be chatting up children or officers pretending to be children. What part of the officer initiating and advancing the scenario did you not understand?

[Mehrunes]

I am not sure what point you're trying to make. It is not unreasonable for a hotel to ask for ID of a minor staying on their premises but you are welcome make this into something that it is not and I don't doubt that you will try.

The point I was trying to make was that this was checked in relation to anti-pedophilia campaign as per the article. That you want to pretend it did not include some degree of an assumption about the guy being a potential pedophile is either you grasping at semantic hairs or just being outright dishonest. Either way, your problem, not mine.

Indeed it does not so I am not sure why you mentioned that paedophilia does not cover teenagers.

They merely corrected you on wrong usage of words? I am not sure what point you're trying to make.

Really? My daughter is five and has both a birth certificate, which funny enough she has had since, well, not long after her birth, and a passport. Are you sure you're a parent?

Yeah, carrying a birth certificate with you at all times is all the rage nowadays. And so is carrying a passport if you're not traveling outside of the country.

No one is looking at every man as if they are a paedophile, and just to return to your earlier pedantry she was 13. This type of mentality exists only in your mind.

Except for some UK airlines.

Really? Are you sure that you are a parent? Well it is his problem as Travelodge have a policy of asking for a child's ID and he wanted to stay in a Travelodge.

Except it's not actually mentioned anywhere in their official policy. Which has been already covered in the thread. But who'd pay attention to such trifles.

Oh no, what I am to do? But it is interesting what kind of a pervert a person is, is of relevance to you. Well... by interesting I mean weird...

Neither hebephilia nor ephebophilia are innately paraphilias. But hey, you already established you don't care about what words mean.

But let's be honest for all the hotel staff knew he could have been one those mentally ill/weak willed people that somehow get tricked into abusing children.

Fascinating.

[Elba]

Speaking of extreme double standards - I had to run an errand today then afterwards I was meeting my mother and my niece in the park down the road.

The fucking looks I got from women with their children as I walked through the park alone as a guy in his 20s... holy shit.

Actually obscene.

Society: Social norms are bad. Dads should spend more time with their kids.
Also society: This man must be a paedophile. Why else would he be travelling with a 13 year old girl?

I never get weird looks when walking through the park. Maybe you just look like a sketchy character?

[Sliske]

I never get weird looks when walking through the park. Maybe you just look like a sketchy character?

Yes me in my work outfit sure does look sketchy, right?

Me and all the other people in this thread who have shared similar stories sure all look sketchy af.

Maybe we all wear an eye patch?

[Elba]

Yes me in my work outfit sure does look sketchy, right?

Me and all the other people in this thread who have shared similar stories sure all look sketchy af.

Maybe we all wear an eye patch?

Well, I don't know. There gotta be a reason. Or maybe I have just a friendly face. Or maybe you guys are paranoid and imagine things.

[Sliske]

Well, I don't know. There gotta be a reason. Or maybe I have just a friendly face. Or maybe you guys are paranoid and imagine things.

yeah im sure this guy just imagined being approached and accused of paedophilia : - )

[Sliske]

Well that escalated from dirty looks to being accused of being a pedophile. Are you sure you're not just making up stories now?

Yes we're all making up stories you got us.

Checkmate atheists amirite?