Jack McClellan - Legal Pedophile

GodMark2 said:
Cool article, yes. Cool judge?
Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.
Click to expand...
Minority Report for fifty, Alex. :mad:

DR
 
Miss Anthrope said:
Ahh, yes this has been a very hot local story around my parts. There are parents stalking him now, showing his picture at events and such. What I find frightening about this individual is that he is lacking the part of his brain that says "don't go public about your desires, and don't act on them".
Click to expand...

Are you implying that he has acted upon them?
 
He was dressed like a witch on the news. Cross dressing all in black with a wide brimmed day-hater witch hat.

That's just creepy.
 
GodMark2 said:
Cool article, yes. Cool judge?


Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.
Click to expand...

How familiar are you with restraining orders? They're meant to be pre-emptive.

Though, I see it as largely unnecessary. So many people are keeping tabs on this idiot, he'd never be able to make a move on a kid.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
How familiar are you with restraining orders? They're meant to be pre-emptive.
Click to expand...
Pre-emptive based on actions, not speech.

They are also not meant to be a substitute for imprisonment which this TRO virtually is.

They also are not supposed to be issued absent a request from an aggrieved party. The article mentions none. Did this judge simply get wind of McClellan and act on his own? If so, he needs to be slapped down hard, imo.
 
So I flip to the UCLA homepage because I lost all my bookmarks recently and I want to see if a department had it's schedule for the year posted like my department does and I see this:

"UCLA police arrest pedophile advocate; he's later released on own recognizance...more"

Yeah. It's Jack McClellan.

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2007/mcClellan.pdf

He was arrested by the Infant Development Program with a camera for violating the above mentioned restraining order. Knowing what this guy is into, I am incredibly creeped out right now...
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but the story doesn't offend me at all as long he doesn't break any rules.

And I even go so far to say that exposing himself is a good step to work on it and keep a sexual orientation under control he probably isn't guilty of in the first place anyway - meaning that he probably didn't chose his sexuality just like gays.

In my point of view the offended crybabies should be prosecuted for any kind of witch-hunting which is still so present in some parts of the world, even in the western one.
 
Oliver said:
I'm sorry but the story doesn't offend me at all as long he doesn't break any rules.

And I even go so far to say that exposing himself is a good step to work on it and keep a sexual orientation under control he probably isn't guilty of in the first place anyway - meaning that he probably didn't chose his sexuality just like gays.
Click to expand...

Are you saying gay, straight, and pedophiles are all on the same normality scale?
 
Grammatron said:
Are you saying gay, straight, and pedophiles are all on the same normality scale?
Click to expand...


1. From biological point of view?: Of course
2. From psychological point of view? Yes
3. From moral point of view? OMG!!11OMG11ELEVENTY!!11!

Your question pointed at Number 3. Why? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
1. From biological point of view?: Of course
2. From psychological point of view? Yes
3. From moral point of view? OMG!!11OMG11ELEVENTY!!11!

Your question pointed at Number 3. Why? :confused:
Click to expand...


My questions pointed to nothing, it was just a question.

But since you claim that Psychologists view pedophilia as normal, please present some evidence.
 
Grammatron said:
My questions pointed to nothing, it was just a question.

But since you claim that Psychologists view pedophilia as normal, please present some evidence.
Click to expand...


Why should I unless you provide some respect and address why your replies are about point 3 of my last post. (The moral Woo)

And to reply concerning "Evidence". Would you really like me to post 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are abnormal!" and 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are normal people." ?

This particular issue is a matter of tolerance and logic - not about the moral/religious fallacy "I'm normal and you are not, you sick [fill in the blank]".

And you are free to start a new topic about the moral card if you're unconsciously trying to derail this thread.
 
The inappropriateness of pedophilia is not "moral woo." It may be for homosexuality, but choose your words wisely.
 
jsiv said:
The inappropriateness of pedophilia is not "moral woo." It may be for homosexuality, but choose your words wisely.
Click to expand...


I did chose them wisely.

Gays are abnormal. (A broad Opinion in recent histories America)
Gays are normal. (Today in most parts of America)


Same goes to pedophilia. It's a problem, I agree.
But like Gays, it's (again) a moral problem as long no criminal Issues are involved.

But feel free to explain why pedophiles aren't "normal".
 
Oliver said:
I did chose them wisely.

Gays are abnormal. (A broad Opinion in recent histories America world)
Gays are normal. (Today in most parts of America)

Same goes to pedophilia. It's a problem, I agree.
But like Gays, it's (again) a moral problem as long no criminal Issues are involved.

But feel free to explain why pedophiles aren't "normal".
Click to expand...


Only heterosexuality is really "normal," but I never disputed that other orientations are involuntary and that people are just born that way.

I'm indifferent towards homosexuals, and I really don't see any reason to care what they do. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles can never ever get a legal outlet for their feelings, desires, and needs. Something that is likely to affect them in very profound ways, and makes them more likely to cross the line of what is acceptable.
 
jsiv said:
Only heterosexuality is really "normal," but I never disputed that other orientations are involuntary and that people are just born that way.

I'm indifferent towards homosexuals, and I really don't see any reason to care what they do. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles can never ever get a legal outlet for their feelings, desires, and needs. Something that is likely to affect them in very profound ways, and makes them more likely to cross the line of what is acceptable.
Click to expand...


I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.

The biggest progress would be public acceptance concerning the nature of their orientation and that it isn't a question of choice.

So a website or Self-help-groups shouldn't be demonized per se - unless there are legal violations.

So why should I choose my words wisely? What did you mean by "inappropriateness"?
 
Oliver said:
I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they can, but it will be infinitely harder than for a person with another orientation.


Oliver said:
The biggest progress would be public acceptance concerning the nature of their orientation and that it isn't a question of choice.

So a website or Self-help-groups shouldn't be demonized per se - unless there are legal violations.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that, as long as the "self help groups" don't simply involve exchanging picturse and tips on how to get close to kids with the least chance of getting caught. I don't base this on any facts, but I feel that the more you make people fantasize and dream about something, the more likely they are to try and carry it out.


Oliver said:
So why should I choose my words wisely? What did you mean by "inappropriateness"?
Click to expand...


Your use of the term "woo."
 
jsiv said:
I'm sure they can, but it will be infinitely harder than for a person with another orientation.

I have no problem with that, as long as the "self help groups" don't simply involve exchanging picturse and tips on how to get close to kids with the least chance of getting caught. I don't base this on any facts, but I feel that the more you make people fantasize and dream about something, the more likely they are to try and carry it out.

Your use of the term "woo."
Click to expand...


Well, moral misconceptions are "Woo". Because they depend on your own moral concepts and it's a fallacy to claim that other moral standard are Woo just because they aren't conform to your personal ones.

I think it's important that people who are pedophiles have the chance to talk about it - so they can actively work on that and understand plus analyze it - especially in exchanges with people who have similar problems.

I wonder how Flo would argue about that.
 
Oliver said:
Why should I unless you provide some respect and address why your replies are about point 3 of my last post. (The moral Woo)

And to reply concerning "Evidence". Would you really like me to post 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are abnormal!" and 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are normal people." ?
Click to expand...

Just one psychology article on how pedophilia is healthy will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom