/hansen/ - HvP & TCAP General

Steelers and the Ravens!

why did he doubted hansen?

i give him credit for being that quick on his toes to say the matchup

according to google one of the games went to OT, fuck bet he wishes he was balls deep in illegal pussy celebrating the win

He looks like this guy
youtube.com/watch?v=08y3XMgKLI4

He looks like a TMNT

youtube.com/watch?v=iBDQeAcUAXY

What did he mean by this?

Are there any user pedos who can explain their attraction?

I'm a teacher in my late 20s, I'm attractive and I have a ton of these girls flirting with me. I flirt back, but that's about it. They, mostly, are not attractive to me because they're ultimately very immature and offer nothing but what I did at that age, a will to experiment.

Do pedos have a lack of experience at the ages of 13-14-15? Or are they ultimately broken people who should be either executed or chemically castrated?

Some are the former, others the latter

The ones used on this season are mostly a bunch of lonely guys. The last episode felt more like "to catch a stoner" than anything related with degenerates.

I'm 30 and recently fucked around with a 20 year old coworker with a qt face, flat waist, plump ass, and nice tits. (really)

It felt close to pedo shit, even though it wasn't. She fumbled her way through a terrible BJ. Let me do whatever I wanted. I didn't even fuck her because it was so obvious how inexperienced and eager she was.

I will never mess around with someone that young again and it just cemented to me that there is zero appeal in younger people for me.

From what the show has shown, these guys just want someone to give them attention. Teenagers latch onto anything and give it attention instantly, so it's the quickest way for them to matter to someone.

look how quickly she puts her hands in her pockets so she doesn't have to touch that shit

Yeah, the guy didn't even say anything sexual or get charged with anything sexual.

They're reaching for content. The guy just seemed like some 32 year old outcast loser who was desperate for human attention.

I've always thought it was the idea that girls that young can't really tell which adults are losers and which aren't. Girls their own age won't fuck them, so they have to find ones that can't tell that they're losers. That's my theory anyway. I can't really explain the ones who try to pork toddlers.

>Episode 2: The Worm

Isn't there a South Park character that looks like him?

34 banging a 22yo student of mine.
She's great at sex but that's because she's a slut.
When we're alone together it's great but when she's with her other young friends they regress into annoying childishness. Doesn't help that she's constantly getting high

Can I get a liter of Snapple?

i would pay $1000 if i got to have a copy of all of the chat logs that take place

Bring me some Snapple and I'll let you do me raw

>Pledge $1,000 or more
>Be the decoy

Does anyone have information about Chris's divorce?

Yeah, he got divorced

...

>p-p-p-p-please
>no please guys
>guys please

What a beta.

You know that's not what I meant

I liked how he thought he wouldn't be arrested if he went out the front door

Not a pedo but I used to be attracted to girls in ages 12-15. For me it was because I was sexually active as a teen with girls in that age range and I kind of lost my game in my late teens to early twenties, which is when I also realized I still fantasized about being with younger girls because that was all I could relate to. Not sure if this applies to the guys on the show, some of them are just straight up creeps but a fair guess is that the majority have some type of mental disorder.

>expecting any of us to find you dirt about Saint Handsome
Smdh fampai

Yeah, take a look at him.

What's your favorite scene? Mine is the rabbi one
youtube.com/watch?v=4-SggWOxYk4

You sound like a great educator, calling your student a slut and fucking her. Sure do sound like an intelligent soul

butthurt niceguy detected

youtube.com/watch?v=FZK7Zx7s0Vg
how can other degenerates even compete?

youtu.be/JB1ATJgGEaI

Pure kino.

No victim, no crime.

>Trying to take out the goyim with his Jew Claw

>bank robber logic

>molesting fictional character is a crime

redditor logic

You pedos try this in every thread to the point where every OP even links you the legal definition for entrapment in the fucking post...just give it up. You lose every time...

>treat people with basic dignity, you are a "niceguy" meme
Prob why most of you are whispering mouth breathers who get mad that Chad fucks your lifelong friends from kindergarden despite how skilled you are with a shurikan

I didnt even mention "entrapment', retard.

Oh, but you started with "dur fictional character" meme, it was only a matter of time. That point is just as autistic.

>projecting this hard

Except that's wrong. Violate a law, and you've committed a crime.

Reminder: Chris Hansen is the predator

>keeps dick pics on his phone
>Kitchen is his kill room
>eats the snacks

I wonder how many back-up he has of all the "evidence" he collected on his personal hard drive.

Sure, its projecting. Whatever you need to tell yourself [email protected]

In all fairness, the guy in the most recent episode didn't really do anything wrong.
Saying that he liked smoking weed is hardly a crime. He's an idiot for taking to the police so they could rope him into a bullshit conviction.

Where can I get all the episodes of the original series?

Did you miss the whole "attempt to solicit a minor and send your dick pics to a child" part of the episode?

He didn't do either of those things though.
Did you even watch this episode?

He didn't send shit, he just asked if she had a good downward dog.
Do you blaze?

...

HE'S OBSESSED WITH PIZZA

You apparently didnt

Alright, show me where he did any of the things you mentioned.
Prove me wrong.

lel

>guy is on to catch a predator
>solicits a minor
>"durrr he didnt do nuffin at all"

The arguments are getting this autistic are they? Now they are completely innocent? Wew, mates. What next?

>obsessed with pizza

Watch the episode you obtuse faggot

He just asked about yoga and if she blazed.
Its a question.

No no, don't run away from this. Show me. You can't because it didn't happen.

Starting episode 1

whish me luck guys!

>pedos getting dumber by the thread
>now child diddlers dont do anything wrong at all

At least before it was "maybe they shouldnt tell kids to sit in their dicks online", today it is "they straight up didnt do nuffin"

Brilliant. You are all truly scum

That a self portrait, faggot?

Still haven't shown me any proof that the guy in the latest episode committed a crime.
Guess I was right and you were wrong.

He actually did nothing.
Did you not watch the episode?
He only said he wanted to smoke pot and watch football.
They had nothing they could charge him with, he wasn't even in possession of weed.

It is literally in the episode...the link is in this thread...
>dat makes me right by default ha ha
Thats not how being right works you retardo.

You fucks have defended literally every pedo from every episode. Your opinions have been trashed long ago.

I said show me. If you wanted to shut me up, you could just simply post the quotes or pics that show I'm wrong.
You haven't. I'm right and there's nothing you can do about it.

>Everyone defending Mike Thrilla is one person

>You haven't. I'm right and there's nothing you can do about it.
This is straight up the logic of a petulant child. You need to go back.

Go ahead, keep squandering an opportunity to prove me wrong.

>I cant read

>youtube.com/watch?v=QJxXwRIQwVE
hes still got it

just needs to loose some weight

Yo I thought there was a party here. Wrong address. My bad.

Holy shit the dude had a fucking kill kit

Episode 2

here we go

We out here

oh god I can't stop cringing

lmao he looks like a nice guy though for real

Is this all you can conjure, pedo?

I'm not a 'muh entrapment' shitposter you moron, I'm just curious about his divorce.

He did give her a very thoughtful assortment of snacks

Sure thing pedo.

Am I the only one here who actually feels he was being truthful about just wanting to watch the Ravens game??

>MFW I realise the coincidence that Chris Hansen 's favourite snack is cheetos

Real pedos like prepubescents, the people on the show are just lonely losers who would go to the house of anyone who didn't reject them.

...

If you like girls with boobs and pubic hair you're not a pedo.

>he wouldn't have even been convicted.
He was in this show. his live ruined already.
And his teacher job? He can say goodbye for it.
He just realised it all, while you - not.

>youtube.com/watch?v=jeKBL9yOdjc

>Kush Smokers R Us
DUDE WEED..

why was boo so smug?

"pedo" is more a general term, so in that sense it still applies as it has a very wide usage. Pedophilia of course is pre-puberty in actual definitions. Frankly, "diddler" is a lot better than pedo as it skips the argument over definitions and has a comedic ring to it.

These guys have looked right into the cameras and didn't think to fucking bolt for it. Were they that desperate for underage sex that they blocked what they saw out of their conscience?

what is he thinking Cred Forums ?

It's hidden dummy

that decoy is hot as fuck though

no pedo though

>that posture
>that hair
>those mannerisms

Where did it all go so wrong?

citations please

It's obviously not hidden that well, even Chris admitted that the subway guy saw the camera.

This episode was pretty meh hope the next episode is any good

>Boss Papi never got to use the restroom
LEL

No if he had not said anything to the police or Hansen and just waited for a lawyer he would not be convicted, guaranteed. However he confessed to stupid allegations and incriminated himself like a retard.

>walk naked into house full of cameras
>get chaistised by long-legged Aryan demi-god
>he criticizes your flab
>he makes light of your saggy ass
>he begins facetiming with is sidechick and shows her your little penis
>after he hangs up on her, he spits in your face
>screams at you to leave
>alternates between screaming violently and laughing to himself

What don't u just fuck a granny then roastie

>doesn't bring snacks
>literally wants to dump his shit as soon as he enter the decoy house
literally scumbag

>I don't have any friends. I have no friends. I just wanted to hang out with somebody

>tfw

Chris Hansen should have let him take the dump and recorded the sounds and then played the sounds back for him during the interrogation like,

"So what makes u think its okay to make huge farty dumps in a little girls toilet? The toilet of her family? The family toilet...you just had to shit in it? Do you have any idea how bad you smell? You reek. You reek of shit."

>major in Math

>any prison cell I want
>$1 a day starting doing manual labor

Something about Chris's old face makes me like him more then I used to.

Poetry

youtube.com/watch?v=YHeASfQL-bk

Wew lads

DESPITE ALL MY RAGE

Did the math tutor really go to jail for 3 years??

That's fucked up he didn't do anything wrong other than smoking weed in his private life.

No, probation for 3 years.

he was bald tho
like really bald
and he had a really fat set of legs and greasy buttocks

>had an affair
>thinks he some kind of moral authority

Why is he such a fucking hypocrite?

because he is tall
that's really all it takes

>fucking another woman is the same as wanting to fuck children
well memed my friend

Every saint had their flaws, user.

he didn't go to prison

Look at that fucking gut.
I wish one of these poor saps who get entrapped by him would punch him right in that fat stomach of his.

>muh kill kit

>No, probation for 3 years.
lel and he's a stoner

if he gets caught smoking weed he's fucking DONE

>thinking something is illegal

All these lads did was sex talk an adult, literally not a crime.

UR DUN BUD

WE GOT THE CHAT LOGS

what did he pull out of the bag?

I had a friend who was a pedo(no longer friends with him) he had sex with a 12 year old when he was 20 then got arrested for it, surprised he didn't land in prison. The breaking point to end my friendship with him was when he started dating an underage girl again while he's still on probation. From what I took from it, young girls are way too easy to be manipulated. And these older guys know how to push their buttons to get what they want. Also because he was ugly as fuck and never had a gf until the 12 year old

Do you pedos have anything new to say?

Whats your point, friendo? It really was a kill kit.

Chris? Cheating is wrong, you know.

How was him fucking the 12 year old the first time, not the breaking point? You sound like a shitty person if that wasnt at least a red flag for your friendship...

I was thinking this

All the crew apparently thought so as well. Police were holed up in the garage.

>abandon friend the second they get in trouble

You sound like the shitty person.

The Jap who dove headfirst in to the table after being busted.

This isnt abandoning a friend at the sign of trouble....its dissociating with a literal child rapist.

The fuck is wrong with you? Did you st least chastise him? Explain what he did was wrong? Did you put any effort in or just shrug your fucking shoulders? Because being a good friend is condeming shit behavior. Not enabling or allowing it. You dont have to unconditionally support friends if they do shit things...like I dont know...how about child rape?

God you are a fucking faggot if you didnt even condemn his actions.

What kind of person are you where child rape wasnt the red flag that was the FIRST thing to question being friends with this person?

Chris never broke any laws or solicited minors...

>child rape

It was consensual. If everyone in their life abandons them things will only get worse.

Are you a legitamate retard? She was 12....yes? Then it is child rape. A 12 year old cant legally give consent in nearly every fucking state in this country. You are a degenerate piece of filth if you didnt question or reconsider your friendship with a literal child rapist, or at the very least condemn his behavior.

Answer the question, did you condemn his behavior to HIM? Did you tell him why it was wrong? Because you are a shit human being if you didnt do that much

>a sexual being cant make their own decisions because of arbitrary rules

Rape is forcing someone against their will. The will was 100% completely consensual. As long as the two parties consent it really should be no one else business.

Ill explain this again, an underdeveloped child who is not a full mental or physically sexual being by her own fucking biological clock, according to the laws od this country, is a child, children cannot give proper consent to sex. So it is yes, child rape.

Your friend is a child rapist. You are a child rape apologist. You are worse than he is in some ways, you should even know better...not rationalize your friend, the rapist pedo

You are a degenerate scum

12 is legally a child you retard. Children can not give consent, therefore it is rape.

Stop replying to the mental gymnastics of pedos on Cred Forums, they apply the same kind of logic as third wave feminists

They are sexual being making their own decisions. Artificial, arbitrary, made up rules are irrelevant. If sexually active 12-13 y/o didn't procreate our species wouldn't be here. Its the way nature intended not some silly made up rule to keep prudes happy.

considering these stings are built around a scenario where a 12 year old is consenting, the law not recognizing the ability of a 12 year old to consent just smacks of a loophole.

Sort of autistic to compare feminism witg pedophilia...

Not really, both require you to defy logic and do mental gymnastics

>biological reproductive clocks and actual rate of a developed human brain
>are "arbitrary" rules

Castrate yourself

considering this is a guy who's just spammed "ITS ILLEGAL STOP RAPING KIDS OMFG ITS LEGALLY RAPE STFU" every day for five weeks now, autism is pretty much certain.

>considering these stings are built around a scenario where a 12 year old is consenting
Its like youve never watched the show or know what our laws are, pedo faggot

>implying the law is logical

now you're just being silly

The law not recognizing a thing doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

Then move to some middle eastern country where it's legal to have consexual sex with preteens and legally rape anyone who enters your home if it fits you better

Its actually a good to have more mature person help them with with sexual activity as they become capable.

Whatever you say child predator

Nothing wrong with feminism, mate. Probelm is thst Cred Forums cant look up in a dictionary what the word feminism means. Instead they go by the fringe groups. Why do you ever listen to fringe people?

>deteriorates in to angry insults in the face of logic and facts

typical hansenfags

It is rape. Literal sex with a minor is child rape

At least I don't want to fuck children

... did you mean to reply to that post with a complete and total nonsequitur? I mean that doesn't seem like a relevant reply to anything in this thread, so I can't tell.

Fuck off pedo

Third wave feminism isn't a fringe group. Its feminism.

You sound like a disgusting filthy degenerate

The people that you may have problems with are fringe feminists who hijacked the word and are fucking up third wave. Third wave feminism by itself is not terrible. There is nothing wrong with it unless you have autistic triggered issues with women.

Do you really think you use logic and facts?

You are defending fucking a 12 year old...an underdeveloped child... A biologically defined child...

...

>20 years for just chatting

What the fuck, isn't that a bit much.?

People that age have been procreating since our species started, thats a fact.

...

No, your retarded arguements make me mad. You pedos say the same three fucking points in every thread

childhood is biologically defined as preadolsecent.

12 year olds are often post-pubescent.

This is one of those things that would have to be defined on a case by case basis to actually mean anything.

Probably has a lot of priors, most likely similar cases of interacting with underage online or irl

No, thats not a fucking fact. We havent been breeding that young as a necessity in a literal few thousand years. Most 12 year olds havent even gotten periods yet. They are children. They are biologically children. Fuck yourself.

Because they are true facts, but you simply cant handle reality and fly into a delusional rage.

>12 year olds are often post-pubescent.
Literally not true. Their brains are still underdeveloped as well. So its a two fold issue

Oh don't be dense. You know full well people have argued dozens if not hundreds of different points with you. Whereas your single response is legality as if it is the end-all be-all of right and wrong.

Nothing you said was a fact. I wish I knew who you were in real life. I wish I could ruin your fucking career and watch you mutter how its ok to fuck a 12 year old in public

You realize by arguing that point you're just lending credence to the idea these stings are built around completely nonexistent entities, right?

You are a very uneducated person. To this very day females as soon as their period starts are married off. This was the case for entire world for literally 99.9% of mankind's existence.

>M'lady, I want to show you my Katana, glorious nippon steel folded over one thousand times, after that we shall watch my favorite animes on my laptop while enjoying a glass of red wine and Cheese&bacon Pizza pockets

>there are 50 anons here

No im not...how fucking off are you?

I wish people like you would just get off the internet. For if you can't handle people having differing opinions, why enter spaces where people are allowed to say things that might offend you?

Maybe there's a chatlog, I'd reserve judgement until the whole story.

You're saying 12 year olds can't consent to sex.

the stings are built around the decoys pretending to be 12 years old and consenting to sex.

Or are you full double-think on this point?

Everything I said has been true and factual. You hide behind some artificial made man rule that defies what mankind has done for 100,000s of years.

>To this very day females as soon as their period starts are married off.
This is not some widespread norm anymore.
I amso think you dont understand how puberty levels are greatly effected and modified by cultural changes over time, a physiological relationship between biological clocks and resources, chemicals and growth devlopment. This is fucking biology...puberty fluctuates, the standard median for what constitutes a teenager has actually changed over the course of 500 years...the majority of girls at 11 to 12 do not get their periods in most western countries. But yes, puberty fluctuates from 12 to 13 to as hifh as 16 or even 17. Those cases are rarer but they exist.

Your opinion is ignorant of law and of biology.

Do you even watch the fucking show? Do you read the chats? Do you understand how solicitation laws work?
You are a fucking moron.

>uses double think unironically
You are a cancer

Yes, yes, yes, no u.

Taking your response as a "yes" to being in a state of perfect doublethink.

AoC laws aren't based in any sort of scientific finding.

A child cant legally consent to sex. Whatever the decoy says, if the adult (keyword ADULT) shows up to physically solicit a minor, that is attempt. That is motive to solicit. What, are you trying to fucking sit here and say that a 12 year old child is just gonna seduce a fully grown adult? Where do you think the responsibility lies?
>but officer, I was seduced by the child. She came onto me!

Shes a fucking child you degenerate, YOU should know better not to put your dick in a child. What is the matter with you? Are you literally an autist?

I cringe everytime you seriously use the term "doublespeak"

Child rape laws are, yes.

>ep 1
>military vet
>"the time in the service made me do it"

No wonder no network would pick this shit up. It would contradict their headline news at 5pm.

...

Puberty in general starts as soon as a girl has sufficient body weight to support a pregnancy. Serious gymnastic careers and eating disorders can delay puberty till a girl's 20s.

But this is kinda irrelevant, as the stings are built around that fantastical creature of myth, the 12-13 year old who knows what sex is, finds disgusting old men sufficiently attractive to consent to sex and invite to her house for the purposes of sex.

The complete and total nonexistence of this fantastical creature further reinforced by claims that a 12-13 year old girl is mentally incapable of understanding or consenting to sex.

doublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeakdoublespeak

"child rape" laws and age of consent laws are the same thing, neither are based in any sort of scientific research or finding.

Most of the cameras are hidden behind two-way mirrors.

The predators aren't looking at the cameras, they're looking at themselves in the reflection.

You are such a retard that it hurts

Yes, yes they are. Stay salty pedofag.

>I dont understand what puberty is, the post.

Yeah, except the subway dude fixed his eyes right on a ''''hidden'''' camera. Chris even acknowledged it in the voiceover.

>i need scientific proof that it's bad to fuck kids

Do you not look at yourself in the mirror?

Why are pedo apologists so hung up on biology and breeding? Who gives a shit if our ancestors did it, they also did a whole bunch of nasty shit that aren't acceptable in a civilized society. Anti-pedo laws are to protect emotionally/intellectually vulnerable people from entering into an exploitative relationship, you dumb fucks. It doesn't matter if her tits were developed.

Some sort of backing is needed for a law to be anything other than arbitrary, yes.

Despite what retarded american laws say, this is 100% correct

^this

But biology doesnt really reinforce their argument either anymore, puberty levels have changed over time and are actually majorly dependent on cultural and economic factors, which isnt something I made up...its a real thing. 12 year old in most of the world is not able to carry a child, especially not in western countries. Not to mention how underdeveloped a brain is at that age. Basically what you said, reinforced by actual biological and neurological science

The laws were purposefully written to be vague and open in order to give legal recourse in cases where it is someone's business.

The problem, of course, is they're specifically written so that it doesn't matter if there isn't an actual victim.

No, a child can not legally consent to fucking sex. A child can not be considered a consenting party, no matter how much the child wants to have sex. You should know better. Stop being retarded.

It is child rape.

I just want to fuck them not talk or spend time with them

So the fact these stings are built around a child being physically capable of sex, knowing what sex is, and consenting to sex means it's absolutely impossible, by your own words, for there to be a victim.

Which begs the question, who are these stings protecting?

Or you could just not go and fuck a 12 year old? There is literally nothing positive or normal to get out of a relationship with a 12 year old. Do you think that if we got rid of these laws that youd connect emotionally with some bed wetting 12 year old and then go out on dates with them? Talk about justin beiber and barbie dolls? You have to be an infantile fuck to want a sexual and emotional relationship with children

Was this guy retarded?

He was just getting to eat!

Why do you keep not understanding this? How is this hard? We educate you pedofags in every goddamn thread

Are you just biologically incapable of staying on subject or in context? These stings are putting people in jail for typing things out on the internet to people who don't exist.

No, you just retreat to to the comfort of law and treat law as the absolute authority on all things whenever someone makes a point you can't counter (read: any point).

>who are these stings protecting?
Gee, its almost like that if it wasnt a decoy, there would have been actual child rape...really makes you fucking think.

I thought children were physically and mentally incapable of consenting to sex.

But now they're completely helpless and just invite everyone they chat with to their houses to sex?

It has literally been explained to you, for weeks, with hundreds of different anons, with even fucking law students...I dont know how else I can package "you are wrong and a fucking idiot", since you refuse to listen to it every time.

Good. Because if they weren't there to be the recipient of these diseased people's attempts, it would be a real kid. The fact that the pedo's don't know it was a trap, the fact that they took the bait, means that they willingly would have gone to a stranger's house to fuck a kid.

If a child tells you to come inside, are you so weak willed enough that you cant say no to a literal 12 year old? Are you that much of a retard, user? Do you think this is an argument?

>go to Bonneville Salt Flats
>drive hundreds of miles per hour
>do donuts
>go up on two wheels
>pull 180s
>pull reverse 180s
>cop car pops up out of nowhere and arrests you for reckless driving

same shit as these stings

No ruber?

>I have no counter
>time to act like hes a weak pervert

... are you okay?

>These stings are putting people in jail for typing things out on the internet to people who don't exist.

Do we need to say it slowly?

THEY SOLICIT AN ESTABLISHED MINOR
THEY GO IN CAR
THEY DRIVE TO MINOR
THEY SHOW INTENT
THAT BAD
SOLICITING MINOR BAD
NOT SOLICIT MINOR GOOD
DRIVING TO HOUSE BAD

>a real kid is going to invite these fat bald greasy losers to their houses to have sex

...

Just really hungry

you have been constantly countered, its tiresome. Ive been in these threads since the new season started and literally we have been saying the same shit every thread and you pedofags keep repeating the same memes over and over
>muh entrapment
>muh fictional character
>she was asking for it
>no victim

And each time you get refuted your autism and cognitive dissonance is so fucking strong that you just sit there and keep repeating it
I hate you. I literally hate people like you and I wish youd go public with your beliefs and rightfully get criticized as the degenerate piece of shit you are

Every time you bring that up, someone mentions how all these laws are written so as to directly criminalize saying things online to an imagined entity and literally nothing else is relevant.

Allow me to direct your attention to the guy who got 20 years and 10 years probation for saying things on the internet.

Not the point

That just happened two episodes ago

I know, and its cute how in all that time you've yet to make a salient point. You just keep repeating your weak appeals to authority and showing your complete lack of understanding of the statutes in question over and over until people stop responding to you because you're only in this for the attention. And occasionally people are bored enough to give you attention. As your compulsion for the last word means pretty steady discourse.

But that isnt what happened to the guy if you looked up the chat logs and the fucking court case

Thanks for playing tho

Is entirely the point.

If this doesn't happen outside of the stings, what are the stings accomplishing?

>that isn't what happened
>just look at the chat logs (the only evidence)
>and the court case (he never left virginia and the decoy was in california)

...

I was enraptured by fantasies of having supreme power, such as the ability to stop time, from when I was in the later stages of elementary school. These desires stuck with me, and became much stronger from constantly masturbating with them in mind, until I developed a flat-out fetish for associating concepts. Since it was easiest to imagine and enjoy when using girls that I knew, I also became attached to younger features by association.

I grew up, and that never went away. Though I'm fine with slightly older women, I don't particularly enjoy voluptuous girls. I think most of all, I prefer someone I can control and embarrass.

The laws are literally cited in every threads now because of you obtuse fucks. How far in denial are you honestly? You have been refuted every thread, every fucking week, every episode. You have been proven wrong. This thread, again, (shocker!) you were provne wrong....again

Just fucking stop. You will never win. These points will never be correct.

If there was no decoy, it would have been an actual child...

You retards either have to educate yourselves or shut the fuck up

Even if you were right, it would be the exception to the rule. There is no false conviction epidemic of faux pedos

Daily reminder that genericwhitemale can not be touched.

>durrr if there is no money in the bank, it isnt a heist

... Yea, I know, I cite the laws. They're literally written to criminalize things said online to imagined entities.

Heres the virigina law for codes.findlaw.com/va/title-18-2-crimes-and-offenses-generally/va-code-sect-18-2-374-3.html

Again, the law directly states, "it is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to use a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child younger than 15 years of age to knowingly and intentionally

So, again, the entity doesn't even have to be real to get 20 years in prison.

breaking and entering, at the very least.

I see you want to have this debate again.

These are the only criminal statutes that require zero real world actions against completely imagined victims in order to be sent to jail for decades.

Nothing wrong with that, faggot

>its not robbery if there is nothing im stealing in the store
>its not attempted murder if the gun is fake
>its not a heist if the money isnt there

Your logic is always retarded

>the imagined victim meme pedo apology

Oh boy, we back on that now?

>ur retarded
>my scenerios that involve real criminal acts and real victims prove u wrong

... You seem to have some sort of honest to god mental defect when it comes to arguing your points.

No, wait, that's right, you're in it for the attention.

>These are the only criminal statutes that require zero real world actions against completely imagined victims in order to be sent to jail for decades.
Attempted murder is still a crime, whether the hitman you hired was a cop or not.

Please fuck off with this already

>back to

We never leave it because the statutes are always written to protect imaginary entities from having lascivious things said to them online.

Are you seriously this mentally fucked in the head that you dont underatand why your points are atill stupid? What does it take? How many weeks do you need to spam your apologist shill pedo bullshit?

Real victim. You're countered on this every single time you bring it up.

No im not...

You can make this about me if you want (to look stupid (you do)), but it doesn't change the fact your arguments are always really weak.

But, you're in it for the attention, so its clearly on purpose.

Yes but there is an actual real victim in that case and the decoy is the person who is being hired to do the killing. In the case of TCAP there is no actual real victim because the "victim" itself does not even exist.

And it doesnt matter...intent is still a criminal act...

You realize that you dont want my argument to be anything but weak, right? Its been said to people like you in ten different ways...you just wont fucking accept it. Nothing anyone says, whether they be judges, law students or even fucking ex cops, can convince you.

Just leave these threads alone then, already.

In attempted murder, intent is criminal because there is a real victim.

Reckless driving is criminal because of the high probability of potential victims.

These statues are specifically written so as to not require any sort of potentiality of a victim.

Reckless driving is technically still illegal on the Bonneville Salt Flats. Its not really enforced because there's nothing out there. Thus, no potential or risk of victims.

Son, what you need to understand here is repeating the criminal statutes at people who read and post the criminal statutes doesn't constitute an argument if the argument is questioning the validity of those legal statutes.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, you'll always be wrong.

Its readily apparent to anyone who can read that these statutes are specifically written to protect imaginary entities from having naughty things said to them.

Intent is still criminal if there is or is not a victim....why are you so autistic about the law?

It literally doesnt matter that the decoy isnt a real child, the intent was targeted at what would have been a real victim....intent to solicit...

Jesus fuck this gets tiresome, you just keep repeating the same wrong points

>ameritards actually believe this

Holy Shit. Pedo memer is still going with his:

>GUYS HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING X__D. SHE WASN'T EVEN REAL GUYS, IT DOESN'T COUNT

>"son"

You patronizing pedofaggot fucking illiterate piece of filth. You are always wrong, in every thread. Every time you bring these same arguments up. You get refuted then butthurt then sulk away until someone elae makes a thread. You are a degenerate fuck who cant accept that he is fundamentally wrong

>to be this delusional

Yes, we agree statutes built around online solicitation are specifically written to protect the rights of imaginary entities from having sexual things said to them.

We're saying the exact same thing except I'm saying it is ridiculous and you're saying it's perfectly fine that's ridiculous because THE CHILDREN THINK OF THE CHILDREN THINK OF ALL THE CHILD RAPE

Episode 2: Dollar Store Willem Dafoe

Episode 5: Dollar Store Billy Corgan

I hope you get caught with child porn on your laptop and im there to watch you get carted off

Son, saying your opposition is wrong doesn't make them wrong. You need to actually prove it somehow.

I hope you get arrested for attempt to have intent to risk false report.

>literal threads worth of being proved wrong

I dont know what one man can say in the face of such obvious delusional faggotry

... I see you're completely out of material now. That's kinda sad. But I don't know what I was expecting either.

>its a Hansenfags get BTFO thread

every time

I bet you are a murming mouth breathing faggot who would piss and cry if he was arrested for solicitation and whisper shit like "e-entrapment"

the towel that John Kennely wrapped around his crotch to cover up his exposed dick and hairy balls. Signed by Hansen, Cute Decoy chick and John Kennely.

If thats what you need to think to justify your fucked up apologist beliefs.

Yes, I believe that intent is important to crime...

>role-play with wife
>thought police kick in door
>life in prison

this is the type of world people WANT to live in

BAH GAWD, ITS GOOD OL' JR!

>it's showtime, Hansen

>thought police meme
Okay, pedo

>ESTABLISHED MINOR

no, its an adult pretending to be a minor.

He does have that, unfinished, retard face doesn't he?

The pedo thinks its a minor
It is established by all intents and purposes as a minor
Pedo believes the person he is talking to is a minor
This is intent to solicit a minor...

>Infringing on the rights of a fictional entity is a serious crime and people should end up in prison for it.

>thinks

literal thought crime

Yes you should be punished for criminal intent when there is physical evidence of intent to perform an illegal activity...

What do you think it feels like to come out of the bathroom and recognize Chris Hansen from that show you used to watch ten years ago?

If they weren't planning on committing crimes, why did they go to the house?

No, no its not. Stop cycling this meme already. Nobody is kicking down their door to arrest them for thoughts

>oh no they were going to have sex with a fictional character that was coming on to them.

Not the same thing at all.

That would be like a man carrying around a child-sized doll and treating it romantically and then being charged.

Because pedo apologists are retards in eveey thread who say the same repeated shit over and over and have no concept of what intent means

No just getting baited into sharing thoughts so they can get arrested for thinking about something.

I think he might actually have mental issues. He was way too slow.

Thats the moat retarded example ive ever heard

You seem to do ALOT of that yourself.

They get arrested for driving to the house after soliciting what they believe is a child

Why are some of you constantly retarded about this?

Couldnt even tie his shoes either if my memory serves

Well I, like everyone who thinks you are a retard, am backed up by actual logic and factual information...

the bait is top qt desu

>fictional character meme

Doesnt this get tired after a while? Nobody agrees with you..nobody will...

>i just came here to tell her i wasn't going to come here.

They clearly have no idea what "thoughtcrime" is either, because that concept was something in "1984" that described people being arrested for opinions that were a threat to the ruling party, whereas these people are being arrested for actual sex-related offenses they've done, like sending a dick pick to someone they thought was a child.

Talking to someone online and going to heir house invited is not a crime. The only illegal part according to you is what they thought. Making it literally a thought crime.

This

I agree with him.

Or did you start talking with yourself while I was making breakfast?

Momentary elation followed by crippling anxiety

Never get tired of being right, t b h. I know for a fact me being right annoys the shit out of you.

The distinction gets pretty blurry when the laws are specifically written to criminalize virtual acts against entities you believe to exist.

If Chris Hansen could read thoughts, half the people in these threads wouldn't be allowed near a computer

>send dick pic to what you believe is a child
>tell what you believe is a child that you are gonna fuck them
>drive to house
This is not a thought crime, and not the actual defintion of 1984's concept of a thought crime you fucking retardo

Its dumb everytime you use it

>thought was a child

thought crime

Sending dick pics to another adult you are sexting with is not a crime.

Delusion is a marvelous thing, no doubt about that.

No, it doesnt. Not for most normal non-pedo people

That's literally a thing.

In California, if you film a pornographic movie, and have one of the actors say they're under the age of consent, even if they're both quite apparently and extensively documented as being 75 years old, everyone goes to jail for producing child pornography.

The crime is the solicitation, its the dick pics and the chats and the intent through driving

It is not a fucking thought crime. Its not in his head.

>like sending a dick pick to someone they thought was a child.
Dick crime.

You have not read the book, I can tell.

>send dick pic to what you believe is a child

Sending to dick pic to adult you are role-playing, not crime. What part is crime according to you, THINKING they were 'underage'. Thought crime.

>tell what you believe is a child that you are gonna fuck them

Role-playing with adult, not a crime. What part is crime according to you, THINKING they were 'underage'. Thought crime.

>drive to house

Driving to house, not a crime. What part is crime according to you, THINKING they was 'underage' at house. Thought crime.

Oh, so you agree the statutes are built around criminalizing virtual acts against thought up entities, you just don't agree that it's very close to orwell's concept of "thought crime."

Well, at least we're close enough to the same page to amicably agree to disagree.

>intent through driving
why do you keep bringing up things that aren't relevant at all to the criminal statutes in play here?

There is no jury. You're not going to trick anyone.

>no officer, I know she TOLD me she was 12, BUT I was just roleplaying fucking her in her virgin ass. Yes I bought condoms. Yes I was driving to her house. But I wasnt really gonna do it...I swear. I was roleplaying soliciting a child! You cant arrest me! THOUGHT CRIME! REEE

Jesus fuck

>intent isnt important to crimes of solicitation

Wew mate.

>i have no counter
>i'll imagine a scenario with a real victim and act like its the same thing

you keep doing this.

Are you some sort of entity composed entirely of pure thought and completely incapable of separating your headspace from reality?

Fuck yourself. We are not the same

Im not a degenerate apologist that spergs out about thought crimes

>Oh shit, he caught me
>time to completely misrepresent his argument and declare myself victorious

you keep doing this too

You dont seem to understand that it doesnt matter if there was a decoy or not, your logic is always the same level of retarded

>I didnt read that anons post
>Im still this delusional

Role
Playing
Chat
Room
Dude

Prove intent

>what is a thoughtcrime?

>Im not a degenerate apologist that spergs out about thought crimes

... look up the definition of apologist. You literally are "sperging out" in support of thought crimes.

FLM (Fiction Lives Matter)

>criminal intent that can be proven with physical evidence is the exact same as an Orwellian dystopian science fiction concept

Please just go to bed

We need to march in the streets until the thought crimes against our community stop.

>You dont seem to understand that it doesnt matter if there was a decoy or not

How do you figure? I've literally posted the Virgina legal statute that criminalizes saying sexy things to imaginary people and quite concisely stated I understand that it criminalizes saying sexy things to imaginary people.

I'm saying that is ridiculous.

>Prove intent
Shown through language used in the chat rooms. "I want to be inside you" shows clear intent. That's only half of the attempt though, the other half it the "direct but ineffectual act", AKA driving all the way to where you think a child is and entering the house to have sex with the child.

aw crawp

No matter how many times you repeat your spergy little "thought crime ree" bullshit, it will always be bullshit. Idk how else it can be explained to you...

The legal statutes in question require zero physical evidence to charge a person with a crime.

Its not ridiculous. Youve samefagged this post in six different threads already. Its been explained to you. Fuck off. You lose every thread and ragequit only to come back the next day and get BTFO again

Rinse and repeat retardo

>im gonna say conpletely untrue things because I am an idiot

Well, son, when you grow up and go out into the world, you'll encounter people who are wrong, and the wronger they are, the more convinced they'll feel of being right. They'll sometimes have lots of people on their side who feel the same way.

But it doesn't matter how people feel. If you're wrong, you're always wrong.

I've got facts on my side. You've got your feelings.

Not taking the pedo side but

>their brains arent fully developed yet so they cant consent!

Our brains arent fully developed til we're 25. This argument is trash

>I'm saying that is ridiculous.
Why? The same people who try the kinds of things seen in the show with people they think are real, are the same kinds of people who would try those kinds of things with people that actually turn out to be real.

That's technically not even true. Neuroplasticity just drops off sharply at around 25 years of age. That does not imply the brain is fully developed or that human mental development is linear.

Its just a consequence of aging.

These absurd """laws""" which could see the entirety of Cred Forums locked up in prison for thinking about their cartoon waifus and spergs here defend them with full belief. What a world.

>would try
and the closest to success they'd ever come is chris hansen.

so who are these laws/stings protecting?

>mfw my IT teacher who had once been on a jury for a paedophile crime said that the perfect age for a female to start breeding was 14

He must have got it from the paedophile in court then checked it up, the thought of the paedo defending himself to the judge/jury in court made me grunt laughing/

>ive got facts on my side
>entrapment meme
>fictional character meme
>thoughtcrime meme
>zero understanding of criminal justice
>zero concept of criminal intent
>no concrete understanding of solicitation
>"b-but muh thoughtcrime" (x20)
>post after post after post after post
>disagrees with the actual word for word lettering of the law
>ignoring all concepts of law
>thinking you have "facts"

You should have been aborted

how dare you not think of the rights of card captor sakura to not have lewd things said to her.

He's just trying to get something to eat!

A baby isnt developed, but I dont want people fucking babies. Is there not supposed to be a limit?

you know what you're doing there is called strawmanning, right? Its what people do when they don't have any sort of factual basis for their feeling based arguments.

>and the closest to success they'd ever come is chris hansen.
That sounds like speculation on your part.

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. I think we can all agree on this.

I'm just posing a hole in that particular line of argument.

I live in Spain, and the age of consent here was 13 like 15 years ago.n

I fucking hate the pedos who always shit up these threads with their bait and entrapment memes. The trolling isn't even funny, it's about as enjoyable as doing the dishes or mopping the floors.

>oh shit, people are being logical
>bring up babyfucking! that'll get him emotional!

son, really.

Again, they are protecting the potential victims that would have been in place of the decoy...otherwise there wouldnt be a show...if there werent men who wanted to fuck kids

Sort of need that to be the catalyst....

lmao

and the foundation of your feeling based argument is a "what if" based upon the completely speculative scenario of an actual person, much less child, inviting these fat disgusting old men to their house for sex.

You have literally spouted memes and show no concept of how laws work.

>use this as my skype profile picture
>go to sleep
>wake up 8 hours later
>4 people have deleted me

What went wrong?

Shall we go back into the difference between jailbait and kids, or would that just trigger you into shutting down again?

>hey are protecting the potential victims that would have been in place of the decoy

Literally pre-crime. Moved from 1984 to Minority Report. This guys want a dystopian future really really bad.

Do you know what the term jailbait actually means?

That just happened on this show

Look up the definition of "meme." Literally everything is a meme.

You're an idiot for taking heavily edited out-of-context shit at face value.

>ITS PRECRIMEEEEE REEEEE
>THOUGHT CRIME REEEE
>SAVE ME ORWELL!!!!!

fully developed DTF minor

Or do you have some different definition?

>Go to meet girl
>Bring food for yourself
>Bring nothing for her

Maybe there is a reason he can't get a girlfriend.

>AAAAH SAVE ME ORWELL!

>i have no argument and caps lock key
>take me seriously

son... its really time to stop.

Not cute/built good enough.

>implying he was the top

>Literally pre-crime.
It's not that either. That's predicting someone will try to commit a crime, Again, these people who are arrested have often
Already committed a crime
And are making a clear attempt to commit another.

Maybe he said
>JUST KIDDING!
after his confession

>I have no argument but I am completely triggered and need to respond.

>predicting someone will try to commit a crime

Exactly like >muh intent. These men dont actually do anything.

>400 replies, not realizing that (like in every fucking thread) they have already been refuted at least a dozen times

Wew, pedos. Cant wait to do it all again tomorrow until your inevitable suicide or conviction!

Considering he didn't go into any detail at all and was quite abruptly cut off before he could go into detail, you have no idea what happened with that 15 year old, how old he was, who was pitching (though you can be pretty certain he wasn't), when it happened, etc, etc.

You have literally zero details. All you have is speculation.

You are obviously the one here the most.

Jailbait is still a minor...so whats your point

Oh, so the statutes aren't written specifically to protect the rights of imaginary individuals from virtual acts?

Care to quantify that at all?

>nobody has ever answered this at all...

>These men dont actually do anything.
Nigger, I just fucking told you. They sent dick pics to someone they thought was a young teen, or started telling them they wanted to have sex with them, and then came to their houses to do it.

a minor thusly referred to as such because they are appealing enough, to any man, to risk jail.

I mean, the actual statutes are posted every thread, and they are quite clearly written around protecting the rights of imaginary entities from virtual acts.

But maybe I missed something, something you for some reason haven't posted, ever.

I'm an optimist after all!

Why do you continue to not understand what criminal intent is and why its important?

>they thought

so they didn't actually do anything.

Still a minor, so whats your point?

Nigger, I just fucking told you. They sent dick pics to someone they thought was a young teen, or started telling them they wanted to have sex with them, and then came to their houses to do it.

I'll keep telling you the actual action they actually committed until it gets through your thick pedo skull.

Might have something to do with criminal statutes being written to require zero quantification of intent and no actual victim.

I mean, even you regularly admit the crime in question is a huge departure, what with your tired hypotheticals where there are real victims and real crimes.

>thought

Wasn't an actual teen, it was an adult. Thinking they were under-age makes it literally a thought crime. Your defense of thought crime is that it may protect future real teens. Which makes that literally pre-crimes.

>still being this wrong

something about an entry into the cultural lexicon that admits minors are fucking hot and people want to fuck them enough to go to jail, for they're fully developed and consenting, despite the law not recognizing their ability to consent.

I have a pretty good idea.

No, you don't. You have the idea that hansen bent the editing towards.

Usually jailbait arent 12...and are still minors...

>Thinking they were under-age makes it literally a thought crime.
No it does not. I already explained That "thoughtcrime" is not about when you try to commit a crime, but realize the victim is a setup, it's when you have opinions that are politically objectionable, and are punished for it. Attempting to commit a crime is a crime. It's a crime that requires an action be taken to prove it.

Oh so we're talking what's usually the case now?

Usually no one, much less a kid, would give these fat disgusting losers the time of day, much less have sex with them.

But you're confusing the fact hansen/PJ/tetradcore exists and catches dozens of people on these crimes with commonality, because you see it so often.

This isnt an argument

>do x on the internet while thinking y
>legal

>do x on the internet while thinking z
>illegal

The fact what a person is thinking when they did something is the only distinction between what is a crime and what isn't kinda makes it impossible to not argue this is a thought crime.

Yeah, he broke the law of marriage and destroyed his family.
>b-but it's not a government enforced law
Wow, bootlicker cuckold detected.

>try to sleep with adult you 'thought' was underage
>crime go to prison
>sleep with underage that you thought was an adult
>crime go to prison

you honestly cant win

Oh so you agree with me? Sorry.

They only action in the sequence of events that is actually illegal according you is 'thinking' the age of a person incorrectly.

He legit did not break any laws, moralfag. I dont care what his personal life is. Whoopdy fucking doo. Am I supposed to police peoples infedility now? Why do you give a shit? You can cheat in your spouse, its not right...but its not illegal.

>The fact what a person is thinking when they did something is the only distinction between what is a crime and what isn't kinda makes it impossible to not argue this is a thought crime.
Except that I just outlined what a thoughtcrime is, and it's not as simple as "crime that is committed in a certain state of mind" It's about a purely thought-based crime. It was in the book to portray how Big Brother was punishing people for their beliefs.

No one is being punished for seeing a picture of a 12 year old girl and thinking "That's a 12 year old girl" They're being punished for saying to someone who says online "I'm a 12 year old girl" "Hey, do you want to have sex?"

You cant read properly, can you?

As long as you look like a bit of a weirdo or people don't like your opinion, there is some absurd law that can be twist so you go to prison.

Marriage isnt a law ine can "break"... There is no law of marriage. Thats not how marriage CONTRACTS work. What are you fucking talking about?

Just dont fuck kids and you wont.

Criminalizing a state of mind is definition thought crime, son.

Not sure why that's not in your cliffnotes.

You haven't read the book and are spouting your twist version of what a thought crime is in the book to suit your inane arguments.

See
>No one is being punished for seeing a picture of a 12 year old girl and thinking "That's a 12 year old girl" They're being punished for saying to someone who says online "I'm a 12 year old girl" "Hey, do you want to have sex?"

I'll keep saying this until you get it.

Or speak to imaginary characters.

I have read the book, and that's part of why your argument are so idiotic to me.

It doesn't matter how many times you say something wrong, it won't be right.

Nobody fucked kids in that show and they are seeing jail time.

but I talk to god all the time

am i going to jail???

Fuck off with this already

They are being punished for talking to someone and THINKING they are 12 y/o. Not speaking to a 12 y/o but THINKING they are talking to a 12 y/o. This literally a thought crime, no other way to describe it.

There's not a lot of ways you can interpret, "I did have sexual relations with someone older than 12...15." Maybe they put some date rape shit in his Chinese food and tricked him into saying that, I don't know.

>says the always constantly wrong pedo apologist who is told the same things in every thread but wont just accept that hes wrong

Second half of the book Winston is locked in a Hansen like scenario. Winston was caught and send there after being caught in a Hansen like trap.

When you've got something other than your feelings on your side, I'll be more than happy to admit defeat.

>They are being punished for talking to someone and THINKING they are 12 y/o
What you are saying makes no sense. What if someone spoke to that same person, didn't proposition them with sex, didn't send them lewd pictures, and didn't come to their house.

If what you are saying were true, and the key part of the crime was thinking the person is 12, they could be arrested. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

>stop saying things I can't counter!

"no."

Your entire argument is "thoughtcrimes feels"

Just stop already. Go and rethink your priorities

>think x do y
>no crime
>think z do y
>crime

thus, thought crime.

>no u

you're starting to disappoint.

Are you out of mental gymnastics already?

I like how you constantly ignore the dick pics, messages, buying condoms and driving to their house...

I'm just going to keep linking to the posts where I already refuted your stupid points.

What YOU are saying makes no sense.

Sexting an adult - not illegal. Going to their house after being invited - not illegal. The ONLY thing that makes it a crime is THINKING they are underage.

> the key part of the crime was thinking the person is 12

It literally is. Please tell me one illegal thing they have done other than THINK the age of someone incorrectly?

When are you going to realize that youve been countered and refuted already and now its just a sad observation of constant denial and running in circles

That would classify as the "y"

Not made it to algebra yet?

That doesnt constitute it being a crime of your thoughts...stop being an autist

>It literally is. Please tell me one illegal thing they have done other than THINK the age of someone incorrectly?
You say this in response to a post that outlined why the thought alone would NOT be a crime. It's the actions you perpetrate based on that belief.

You refute nothing. You just confuse the issue then start talking about random stuff. Seemingly on purpose, because you can't counter the argument. Because these are literal thought crimes.

Sexting an adult is not a crime.

Doing the same thing to what you think is not an adult is a crime.

The only thing that changes is a thought. Thus these statutes criminalize a state of mind. Thus, thought crimes.

You can't counter this for the legal statutes are literally written as thus.

Just as soon as I don't have fact on my side.

>You just confuse the issue then start talking about random stuff.
I'm sorry man, but that's just cognitive dissonance on your part. You don't WANT to understand the difference between "thoughtcrime" and the legal concept of intent. You don't want to understand how the state of a person's mind is always important in questions of guilt, to know whether the alleged criminal actually intended to commit the crime.

None of the ACTIONS are illegal.

Is sex talking adult illegal?

Is visiting adult invited illegal?

NO

The ONLY crime is THINKING the age of a person incorrectly.

Again its a
>I dont understand criminal intent
Episode

No other statute is specifically written so as only an imagined victim is necessary for a criminal charge.

So talking about other laws will never help you argue the statutes these stings are built around are literal thought crimes, especially in how they're applied by the stings.

>The ONLY crime is THINKING the age of a person incorrectly.
How many times do I have to tell you why that doesn't make sense? It's not the belief alone. It's what you do with that belief.

Its not juat a thought tho, its the actions associated with that thought and the intent. Just talking to children isnt a crime, telling them you want to fuck, sending pics of your genitals, buying condoms and going to the HOUSE, shows intent.

Intent to commit a criminal act is what puts them in front of a judge...not some stupid "thought crime" meme.

>No other statute is specifically written so as only an imagined victim is necessary for a criminal charge.
[citation needed]

>do x without belief
>no crime

>do x with belief
>crime

Thus, thought crime.

Its not just the belief though!!!

codes.findlaw.com/

Have fun!

Yes, it is. If the only difference between what is and isn't a crime is a thought/belief, its a thought crime.

I see what's going on here now. You don't believe my definitions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
>The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.

>links to the browse page
You're gonna have to try harder than that.

I'm citing for you the whole of criminal law. And telling you to have fun.

So, have fun.

>i read a wiki so I no what ahm talkin abouts

its okay son, we all know you just want to get all them pedros.

So you're all out of arguments, huh?

You've yet to provide any sort of counter for the assertion the criminal statutes in question criminalize a specific state of mind above all other concerns.

You, instead, stick to an extremely narrow definition of thought crime where only states of mind that are against the government are criminal.

So you're either stupid or just doing this for the attention.

>You, instead, stick to an extremely narrow definition of thought crime
I'm sticking to the actual definition of thoughtcrime, not your conveniently constructed version. I have already said that the state of mind when someone takes an action is of importance in criminal law. It's the basis of the concept of "intent". If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with the entire concept of law as it currently exists.

Son, even orwell went broader than that. As thought crime was not only seditious but thoughts of criminal acts as well.

Except there are no "actual children". Without the decoy purposefully acting in a way no real child would act in order to lure these morons in, nothing would have fucking happened.

thanks satan, good to have you on our side.

>Satan supports pedophiles
Typical.