Slashdot Mirror
Roasting Sacred Cows
Hans Gilde writes: "Pedophilia has been a big topic in the UK lately, there have been riots, beatings and vandalism resulting from [pedophile witchhunts]. In an attempt "to ask hard questions about the way society and the media deal with its most difficult problems" and point out "that famous people have a habit of denouncing things without knowing much about them", a comedian in the UK produced a TV show, described in an article in the NY Times, in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: "Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible."" This show is frankly hilarious, and the reaction to it is even better. You probably want to see the show, eh? It's available in .avi or Real and DivX.
None of these seem to work for me. Site not found, file not found or authorization failed are the errors. Is there a known issue or is my ISP making a mess?
As for the age of consent, agreed, it's debateable, but there's a lot of other factors of life in modern American society that require different ages. 18 to vote or serve in the military or buy porn or cigarettes, 21 to drink alcohol, roughly 18 to get married, 16 to drive, etc*. One important issue with kids and sex is the parents--even if that thirteen year old girl consents to having sex with the 20 year old guy, the girl's parents are left with the responsibility of taking care of her and possibly the resulting child as well. (The father could be ordered to pay child support or restitution, but would not legally be allowed to marry or live independently with the girl, assuming that he wasn't in jail for statutory rape in the first place.) Or if the kid catches an STD, it's the parents' responsibility as far as medical treatment both in terms of insurance and power of attorney as to permission to give treatment.
However, there's still a big difference between children and teenagers, which is precisely why those freedoms and responsibilities are phased in beginning around the age of 16. Until we open all of the other privileges--voting, driving, drinking, etc. up to children of all ages, as well as requiring children to be employed and self-sufficient, the consent issue is pretty moot.
*Never too young to pay taxes, though! As for the ages mentioned, your mileage may vary depending on your state, etc.
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
hmmm...the daily poll is "favourite terrorist organisation", so I'm guessing it's a pisstake.
> > It's what Nissan used to call itself in English-speaking countries
> In Belgium too, which is not English-speaking.
> Maybe the same reason why Opel is called Vauxhall in the UK?
No, the Nissan company used to brand their cars "Datsun". (Similarly with Mitshbishi/Colt). There's an old joke with the punchline "raining Datsun cogs".
("Fuji Heavy Industry" are still using the Subaru brand for their cars http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/index.htm)
Opel and Vauxhall are companies which are both owned by General Motors, but kept their names and badges.
But back to the original point - there is no such offense as "jaywalking" in the UK, but pedestrians are encouraged to use crossings where possible. Although pedestrians do have right of way on roads (other than motorways (freeways) where they aren't allowed), that doesn't mean a driver who hits a pedestrian on the road is automatically guilty of an offense even if the pedestrian jumped out suddenly.
rant
> We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
Hardly. If there's a single, take-home message from the series, it's that charities, parliamentarians, government, the press and mass media collude to make rational public debate impossible: "major news topics" derive their sole significance from the extent to which they afford lobbyists, parliamentarians and the news media a pretext for creating mutually self-serving moral panics.
So, in a programme that dealt with the social and media hypocrisy surrounding child sex abuse, the point was made that anyone dissenting from the current hysteria (and suggesting, say, that paedophiles require treatment rather than demonization) would be either ignored or vilified.
Funnily enough, within a day of transmission Morris was vilified in the tabloid press and the programme condemned -- sight unseen -- by three government ministers.
Compared with the rest of a brilliant series, the programme was arguably below par. But to conclude from the fact it was under-written that Morris is somehow a "hack" is frankly stupid.
I never said the effect of the two crimes was the same. I said in my view, both are equally wrong: rape/molestment is a form of torture, and torture, imo, is just as morally wrong as murder. Nor did I ever say the victim's life was over, and nor is it in America -- there are numerous groups to help people who've been raped.
If you convince government to equate rape/molestment with murder then the victim's life is very likely to be over. Since they might feel they have less risk of being caught without a live witness against them.
A rapist or child molestor is really a man who keeps his victim alive, so he can torture her/him
Not all rapists and child molestors have a penis. Given the sexist surrounding the whole issue its impossible to tell how many are men and how many are women however.
are you a post-natal mother? apparently new mothers have uncontrollable urges to pick up babies with their butts sticking way in the air. probably something to do with the fact that if they're in that situation, then the baby is probably on it's way out of the cave, see darwin for the rest...
He was also making fun about people with attitudes like yours. You seemed to miss that part.
I agree that Brass Eye isn't 'satire', it's simply comedic genius. A pity that you (and the Daily Mail reading masses) did not appreciate it.
And of course, I'm not doubting that you've seen the programme for a second...
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
I saw it but think I totally missed a lot of the british-centric jokes. Like I had no clue that guy was actually a member of the Parliment.
And what the hell was Phil Collins doing? Were those taken out of context from some other show, or was he in on the joke? I didn't really get it.
All in all, I thought it was pretty funny, but not nearly as funny as it had the potential to be. The first two minutes make you think it's gonna be hilarious and then it's just...not.
Maybe I'd think differently if I was british.
How low can /. go?
I always thought /. was high tech and nerdie stuff. Geez if I wanted a here about a stupid british (non-scifi) show I would expect to find it on PBS.
I'd like to see you try that in London without getting mown down by a battered looking Datsun Sunny.
She read about it. How's that for detailed and useful knowledge of a topic you will be deciding on?
Hello, kettle.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
My guess would be the media, who want to make a profit. There used to be tabloids, but now every news media, and especially in poor britain, is more or less tabloid.
I could rant on about how it has to do with the traditional class divisons in Britain, and that these media idiots are really trying to turn their entire people into what americans would call "white trash". But I'm too tired! And disgusted!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I never said the effect of the two crimes was the same. I said in my view, both are equally wrong: rape/molestment is a form of torture, and torture, imo, is just as morally wrong as murder. Nor did I ever say the victim's life was over, and nor is it in America -- there are numerous groups to help people who've been raped. A rapist or child molestor is really a man who keeps his victim alive, so he can torture her/him. You wouldn't say that if I spared your life only to torture you, that would be somehow more "noble" than killing you on my part, would you? Of course not.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
:( oops...my bad.
At the risk of sounding anal... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad happens to be from Orwell's Animal Farm rather than 1984.
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
>So we should wonder: what was the point inthe
>history of Western culture where pedophilia
>switched from white to black? And why?
Easy: With the introduction of christianity....
No, it's not just you. They worked about an hour ago, but no go anymore. My ongoing downloads just timed out.
I think it's pretty clear the problem is on your end. Get some help, Johnny.
Read the site policy. Trolls are not allowed. The editors there had no problem with removing comments written to just get a hysterical reaction.
I missed the program... the media hystreria over here was quite shocking - the same media that supported the beating up of a peadiatrician and the assaults of several people who just happend to look vaguely like the fuzzy photographs they published...
When you get politicians and popstars making stupid statements without ever even thinking whether what they were saying made *sense* (and no, none of them were in on the joke) it makes you wonder what other kinds of crap they're saying in supposedly 'serious' programs.
This comment says it well, from the end of the article:
`"How Mr. Morris must be laughing," Harry Owen of Horley, Surrey, wrote in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. "Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "'
It's funny how satire becomes reality in that way. It's kind of like the South Park movie; the whole thing parodied, prior to the fact, the reaction of everyone to the movie after it was released.
Such satire is the most brilliant kind -- when a satire makes fun of the very reaction people have tot he satire. It's when you know that the satire's creators have hit their target right in the center of the bullseye.
The difficulty with fiction is that murder can have lots of motives, and in the realm of comedy, there's often the joke that someone deserved to get murdered, or that someone was accidentally killed. It's a lot different to "accidentally" rape a five year old, or have a legitimate motive for doing so that enthralls the reader/viewer/etc.
Our current ideas of age of consent (mixed as they are) are hardly universal through out history. What was the age of consent in ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire or the various American peoples 1,000 years ago?
Alternativly you can have a sci-fi culture which has any rules you'd like to invent about sexuality.
"can" leave scars...what if it doesn't? What are the percentages of those that are scarred vs. those that aren't, and who decides who is scarred or not?
Also when this does happen what is actually causing the "scaring"
Are there controlled studies?
Odds on if anyone attempted to carry them out then they'd receive death threats. (In the same way that reseach in to domestic violence generated death threats when the results made a nonsense of feminist dogma.)
Why don't you?!! I want to see it too.
I just got freenet and I'm still trying to figure out how to use it. I *think* I just inserted the two 12-minute segments under the keys
brass eye special part 1 of 2 (divx)
brass eye special part 2 of 2 (divx)
How can I find out whether I successfully inserted the files?
The shareholder is always right.
Is adequacy.org for real or just pisstake?
Bits of it are written very convincingly, but honestly "the wholesome family entertainment of Big Brother" is a bit of a give away.
Sociologically /. is a perferct mirror of the lousiest parts of society.
(and yes, I do agree, I'm part of it just like you)
-- Colin
In Greek culture pedophilia was not only not harmful, but considered exceptionally beneficial (see: Plato's Symposium). So we should wonder: what was the point in the history of Western culture where pedophilia switched from white to black? And why?
In fact, British Airways has an official policy of not seating young children next to men when children fly alone.
Oh, yeah, that sounds like a *real* problem. I would actually request that the airline NOT seat an unsupervised young child next to me on an airplane. Do you really want a mommy-less brat dripping snot and whining next to you for X hours?
It's only recently, evolutionarily speaking, that sex has been restricted to "adults." To add insult to injury, the growth hormones that we put in our chickens and our cows are being passed through to the kitchen table, and are causing children to mature faster.
Use of such hormones is very recent. The actual factor is better nutrition.
What's been happening over the last 200 or so years is that whilst the age of physical maturity has been going down the age of legal adulthood has been going up (in the case of places like the US this is 21).
Thus you end up with a large number of sexually mature people legally considered "children".
The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault
You mean like in oh, say, Palestine or Afghanistan, where if you're raped it's often considered your own fault, and you may be forced to *marry your rapist* to keep up the family name? Or possibly killed by a male relative (or even your rapist), also to keep up the family name, because you've been disgraced? Is that considered recovering?
Listen, the U.S. and Great Britain's cultures may be pretty sexually fucked up, but they are NOTHING compared to others. In fact, speaking as a genuine certified female, I'd say I've got it pretty good, sexually, in the U.S. of A. Not that it couldn't be better, but it could also certainly be worse.
Hey, we're not only talking about p(a)edophelia here. We are talking about SEX. Sex is the ruling taboo here. And sex is something that you dont talk about, especially with little kids. So if you not supposed to talk about it, you sure as hell aren't supposed to do it with em, right?
If sex were a more open topic, perhaps it wouldnt be as emotionally traumatizing for a child to say "Mummy, Uncle Ralph had sex with me". Then it would be easier to punish uncle ralph. (What the punishment would be for p(a)edophelia in such an enlightened society, I cannot guess). This is a very slippery slope, but society has a very ignorance based attitude towards sex - what our kids dont know, they cant do. Sexual Education classes start around age 11 now, which is a good start, but if its always been taboo, suddenly talking about it at age 11 won't bring it into the open, and often SEX remains taboo even after such classes for exactly that reason.
The most legitimate logic against p(a)edophelia that I see in our society is that while a citizen is under the age of 18 their parent/guardian is responsible for making their decisions. This raises the question of what happens when Mummy says "Yes suzie, what Uncle Ralph is doing is OK". If suzie didn't grow up in our society, she would probably be emotionally fit. This is assuming that both Mummy and Uncle Ralph are loving relatives with a serious concern for Suzies well being and happiness.
The problem with p(a)edophelia (and, in fact, lots of problems having to do with sex) is that it is often done merely for the gratification of Uncle Ralph with no thought for suzie (whether she is 4 or 40 or black or white).
Now that I think about it, most problems having to do with people have this problem too.
Your
ah, meta-satire! brilliant.
> Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children.
Says who?
How dare you foist your moral view point on other people!
And the subject's out there all over the place... From Oprah to South Park. Every time there's a legitimate case of pedophilia, it tends to be all over the news and papers (though it tends to be restricted to local media, unless the case is particularly bizarre).
The subject is being investigated, debated, explored, etc. The only difference is that a large majority of people tend to agree that having sex with children is not a good thing (especially given that it falls into the non-consensual brand of sex), and that there's few convincing arguments otherwise. (Disclaimers: yes, there's a lot of argument over what the appropriate age of consent is, and that varies with the times. At least in modern Western Civilization, actual intercourse with prepubescent children is considered abuse rather than healthy sexuality.)
Is it a taboo? Yes, so are incest, cannibalism, necrophilia and lots of other things. Unlike the topics of nudity, the Catholic Church, witchcraft, etc., these aren't so much expressions of opinion or choice but rather crimes against another human being, which is a big distinction. The fact that these are crimes doesn't in any way diminish the amount of attention and study given to the subjects, it just tends to weaken the arguments in favor of them, so you're not as likely to have "Pro-Incest Rallies" and "Necrophilia Pride Marches".
All that aside, I'll close with the following from Airplane:
Captain Oveur: Joey, have you ever seen a grown man naked?
and
Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Look, you can't go around asking people to defend their positions logically like that. They are likely to hurt their little brains.
Or 217.34.86.35 - on for another 8 hours or so
Offtopic: 1, Insightful: 1
Thus 50% are idiots.
I love statistics!
-- Colin
The guy who said keyboards could release gas is Richard Blackwood, who is not (thank fuck) as the intro to this piece says, a member of parliament. He's a crap comedian/singer who would desperately like to be Will Smith...
"Information wants to be paid"
Well then, you had best not read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Boy will you be in for a shock...
Good work tho, it seems to catch a heap of ppl's.
It's the supertroll site, v funny
Hey, you forgot about "On the hour"! ;-)
It was a Radio 4 show - before the
day today - absolutely
fantastic parody of radio reporting -
eg the Foreign minister gambling away
the 5th of June at an EU conference.
Sex with a 16 year old is not pedophilia.
You're right, it is the stupid pedestrian's fault, they should have used a crosswalk. In my state (FL), if you hit someone who is crossing the street illegaly it isn't (necessarily) your fault.
Which highlights a notable cultural difference between the US and the UK (indeed most of Europe). In the UK a pedestrian always has right of way on a public road (after all they were using them a thousand years before cars were invented.)
At worst, its an example of predatory behavior by adults against weaker, inexperienced and immature children.
You can get this happening with any age groups. Even where the predator is younger than their "prey".
It's not the kids fault for being idiots and talking ot people online that they never knew and then going out behind their parents backs and getting molested. And it's certainly not the parents fault for not watching their kids internet habits. IT's all the pedophiles and their evil toxic vapors. Just like Microsoft is really good but open source has been drugging the water and making us think GPL is good.
--End Sarcasm--
I am !amused.
"can" leave scars...what if it doesn't? What are the percentages of those that are scarred vs. those that aren't, and who decides who is scarred or not? Are there controlled studies?
In other words, without more data to back up that statement, it seems equivalent to now-outdated thinking about homosexuality or women's suffrage or what have you.
Wow, you missed the point entirely. They just keep whizzing over your head, huh?
Sacrificing *your* freedom and *your* liberty for *your* children is fine. However, you cross the line when you -- through support of politicians and/or legislation -- that remove somebody else's freedoms or liberty for unspecified and unknown children is wrong.
It is fundamentally the same as restricting the freedoms and liberty of blacks for the sake of white people.
No, I do not have children -- thank goodness. I'm not married yet. I do plan to have children, and will provide a good, moral, healthy home and family for them.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
except for the Labour party rep's complicity in the gag about pedophiles using keyboards, there's not much, i agree, to warrant it's positng on /. The brasseye shows do, however, make some good points about misuse of the news media, something i think /. has as much of a responsibility to keep in mind as any media outlet.
.avi's in a shared folder and firing up LimeWire.
/.'s getting profiled on NPR (last month, i think), as one media-type site that has survived and flourished despite odds against it's kind's survival.
Besides, i've yet to see anything like it on PBS; exept for maybe a few Python bits (if one was quick enough to catch the entendres, not easy if Amur'kin is your first language). If PBS doesn't do it, then the web will; i don't expect nearly so much from PBS. While they contribute much to television content, note that they still have to operate within the commercial broadcast infrastructure. Not as easy, i'm sure, as sticking the
congrats to taco & the rest, too, for
The Independent Television Commission ... said that 411 calls had come in to support the program.
Okay, i'm not going to say people should be forbidden from expressing their opinions on such issues, but is this really the right avenue?
"Hello, Information."
"Hi, i've got a bone to pick with you. The recent witch hunt against pedophiles is going too far. If we don't get a grip on this hysteria, we're--"
"Sir, i really believe this goes beyond my training as a telephone operator."
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
This also applies to adults, it's just that children are less resistant. This method of questioning is very similar to torture.
>>Yet everyone cannot wait to tell each-other "How disgusting it was", in a ferocious attempt to prove that they too are not paedophiles
Hmm. Not where I work - every single person canvassed in an informal survey (ok, we were chatting by the coffee machine) agreed that the program was fantastic and made a strong and valid point about overreaction and brute ignorance regarding "taboo" subjects.
~Cederic
Shouldn't that be Paedant?
Find funky gifts
> But I believe that pedophiles are, in general,
> worse than murderers.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Il Sung, Agusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Edward Gein, Ted Bundy, and droves of thousands more...
You're missing the point. Sex criminals (not just pedophiles) are worse, in general (key words), because their actions don't even stem from a normal reaction or impulse. Most of us are probably capable of murder under some circumstances. Many murderers are not completely broken individuals incapable of someday becoming safe, productive citizens. Almost all pedophiles are.
The people you listed above are murderers (and many of them sex criminals, too) who fall into the unredeemable category. Their crimes and motivations have little to do with the average murderer's crimes and motivations.
For what it's worth, I believe that pedophiles are as bad as serial kilers and genocidal tyrants. The magnitude of the damage may differ, but the quality of the individual is the same.
Television in the UK is not made up of perpetual reruns of something that was shown last week, and the week before, etc. Some programs (such as this in fact) are repeated once within a week, and then you've missed your chance to watch it for ages, if ever. I'm sure this is not why it was pulled as that would make no sense at all. If you want to see it though, one word: Gnutella
She masturbated to it. The point is that on camera she has to put up a big show of not watching.
It's like on IRC or AOL when you say you are putting someone on ignore by announcing that. Everyone knows damn well you did no such thing because you just have to know what's going on but at the same time you have to make believe you really did...even when the person makes a statements and you can totally think of the perfect zinger so you end up logging in as a second person and then repeating the comment with a joking laugh so you can feign surprise and deliver the zinger and thus make up for all those times the person outspoke you and thus caused you to put the idiot on ignore in the first place
oh bloody 'ell you've gone and ignore me now.
We could also touch on the porn side of the issue. Should looking at pornographic (that is images depicting overtly sexual situations, not just nudes) pictures of under-age models be illegal?
Definitions of "under age" are highly variable though. Would you mean "under age" where the picture was taken, where the viewer is now, where the picture is now, wheer the subject is now, etc, etc.
What if they are simply fictional illistrations? Computer models? Extremely realistic computer models? Computer generated movies.
Stautes tend to make these equally illegal, but their are loopholes. e.g. Star Trek Voyager isn't "child pornography" even with a character aged between 2 and 5 nor is the movie "The Fly II" even with a lead character aged 5. Being a big corporate probably helps though.
That is like here in America, a politician is requesting a ban on "The Sopranos" because they protray Italians as mobsters. On Larry King live she admitted she had never seen the show, and stuttered into saying she was boycotting it. Luckily Jon Stewart and the daily show concluded "She's a dumbass!" and that they were working on a new show where there were no negative stereotypes against anybody, and no problems or anything, called "The most boring show ever!"
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible
Whats the gobbledygook there? Toxic vapors? the Internet? Keyboard? suggestible? or perhaps Ireland? Either he knew what all of the words meant and was damn stupid for believing it or he doesn't understand the english language and is still pretty damn stupid.
-Jade E.
It's taboo. Dont you get it?
In some traditional Indian (as in India) societies it was considered the normal and proper thing to have their budding ~12 yr old daughters introduced to sex by the most loving, gentle, experienced persons available: their grandfathers.
And I read on some NAMBLA thing where a 14 yr old boy described getting sodomized by his 40 yr old buddy as feeling "really great".
It's people doing mean things to other people that we're trying to avoid. Right?
The tabloid press in the UK has, for the past few years, been using paedophiles as the new bogey men, and at one point there seemed to be almost a revulsion race to see which paper could revile them the most. One of them ("The News of the World") came up with the most disturbing: they would print photographs and addresses of known paedophiles. This seems reasonable, and it was defended by the NoW as such, but it lead directly the the aforementioned riots and, as the article says, witchhunts. This was entirely predictable.
The problem with the violence and the witchhunts is that things got out of hand, as they do when a mob tries to think. In one town they forced out a paediatrician by daubing "Paedo out" slogans on her house (see this). In other locations the naming of people a "Paedos" was enough to get them beaten up - there was a fair bit of score settling going on at the time - here is the BBC about Paulsgrove, the main estate where such things were happening.
There was also a bit of feedback going between the sections of press, hand wringing about the violence whilst implicitly condoning it - after all no one could be for paedophilia. So all was good in the world of the press - circulations were up, they were protecting children from evil, and they were secure in the knowledge that nobody could successfully attack them because that would mean that they were for paedophilia, and could instantly be slurred.
Enter Brass Eye. The press were livid, and instantly attacked. In fact, they attacked before the program went out, and the program was delayed for two weeks whilst the legalities were sorted out - Mr Collins was upset for some reason. The reaction to the show was amazing: every news bulletin, every newspaper, every channel reported it. And reported it negatively at first.
Then the press belated realised that a large section of the public were just not buying the story - see this for a fairly typical cross-section.
Certainly no one I know who has seen it thought it in anyway glorified paedophila. No one was particularly offended by it either. It wasn't about paedophilia - it was about media manipulation. It is vastly amusing to see the very same things that were so effectively satirised in the show wheeled out to attack it. This includes government ministers saying "I haven't seen the show but..." (I will except David Blunkett, the Home Secretary from this as he is blind).
Wow, George Costanza for the Digital Age!
But surely you cannot be serious. You would not rather have your kid killed rather than raped. This is an example of how we have lost sight, as a society, of the relative severity of these offences.
I have two small kids myself. If they were assaulted against their will I would gladly kill the perpetrator with my bare hands. But there is NO WAY that I would rather have them dead than assaulted. It does not even come close. Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
...ummm that I believe is the point.
Have a look at this picture - it pretty much sums it up.
the childraping poet ginsburg dealt with it too.
check for more info on modern pedophiles.
The internet ISN'T taking care of this problem by itself. And people are making money off of the rape of children. This is wrong. and if you think this is acceptable (i don't care what Ginsburg did) then YOU are wrong.
this isn't a "but what about the CHILDREN" sort of thing. We don't let children drive because given the time of development for the human mind, it's a crapshoot risk. we don't allow children to make sexual decisions with adults for the same reason. Yes, in the roman period, women and men were often married in their teens. guess what, this isn't the roman period. deal.
go to andrew vachss site for more info about predatory pedophiles.
Please prove you exist without resorting to a priori premises.
My opposition to pedophilia rests on one a priori assumption, which is fairly fundamental to my values: that imposing your will on others carries a high potential for evil. Another relevant assumption I make is that children, in general have underdeveloped choice-making capacity. This is not an a priori assumption, though proving that rhetorically is tedious and demanding. I would beg your indulgance on the point. (In fact, I will ignore you if you challenge me on it, as I have real work to do today. 8)
In the case of pedophilia, the potential evil attendant upon forcing one's will upon a person with limited capacity for choice is the disruption of normal human development caused by the untimly exposure to a powerful human drive that even adults have a hard time coping with psychologically. The potential for damage increases the younger the victim, and the closer the relation of the perpetrator.
In philosophical terms, the above argument has lots of holes. In common-sense terms, I believe it is nearly bullet-proof.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
I saw the icon and the blurb and had visions of thousands of Britons bursting into homes with torches and pitchforks searching for lonely little men sniffing shoes in the corner!...
This is discrimination and stereotyping of men - could you imagine if blacks were treated this way?
Presumably black men are...
---
Silence is consent.
Fortunately, that's a problem which is specific to a very small area of the world.
Circumcision is a far worse problem. Without going into too many details, I've read that it reduces sexual enjoyment to 20-40% of its original level. (What do you expect when you remove skin that contains so many nerves?)
And we say it's done for cleanliness. Teach your kid to use a fucking bar of soap!
To stay on topic, people used to marry at 12. It's only recently, evolutionarily speaking, that sex has been restricted to "adults." To add insult to injury, the growth hormones that we put in our chickens and our cows are being passed through to the kitchen table, and are causing children to mature faster. Females have breasts at a much earlier age now, making them sexual targets.
I'm not defending the pedophile; I'm simply trying to explain the behavior, objectively.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'd agree with you entirely if we didn't live in a society in which celebrity rather than sanity is the key to getting access to the media. While it remains pretty much standard practice to recruit the famous to promote single-issue lunacies to the populus, I'd say pointing out that they can be persuaded to say almost anything is a pretty good satirical goal. Perhaps not the very highest one could aspire to, but worthwhile.
Steff
Men get paid only a fraction of a % more PER HOUR!! Men work more hours on average. Look it up.
Women are less likely to be punished in car related crimes (speeding, say)--even though the stats show more are being committed by women than men.
As for rape, women don't need to worry about the guy next to them. Less than 1% of Americans beat or rape women, or engage in child abuse. Sure that's still a lot of people, but it's not every man on the subway--and not the 30-40% reported by some extreme feminist groups.
You want to know anti-man action? American schools have researched for years how to improve scholastic performance of girls (a good thing). But, boys are now dropping out of school in great numbers, less are going to college, and few read that well anymore. Why? The boys are being ignored as girls are being focused on--after all, boys have an advantage at birth, right?
Even worse, many young kids (k-2) are being told that, essentially, boys are violent little monsters and need to be forced to pay nice--even though "voilent" play is necessary and leads to a more calm, emotionally stable future. Any charactor building for young men, such as making gentlemen, is shunned.
The roles are reversed and boys are being screwed. Have a good laugh.
I mean perhaps a minority will stop and think and say "Well, perhaps that's true, I got too carried away when I and the rest of the mob beat the living daylights out of that suspected paedophile". But that's surely an small minority. I mean, people capable of such introspection usually stop short of the "mob state" in the first place. Most of the others will call and complain. Nobody likes to be mocked.
I'm now downloading the program. I want to check if I belong to that "small percentage of the psychologically sick" that could have found the program enjoyable, or rather to the other big percentage of the psychologically sick.
--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
If you really think that Brass Eye is about making b/c list celebs look stupid then you have failed in your attempt to understand the show. Get out your 'The Day Today' tapes, watch them, re-watch them, and ask yourself why the programme is funny.
Read some tabloid newspapers. Watch 'Newsnight' and the appallingly patronising 'Tonight with Trevor McDonald'.
Then take a good look at Brass Eye. Pay attention to the sections that don't involve celebrities. Brass Eye *really is* a gem of a show.
Pedophiles do not make for a funny subject, neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
I'm off to put my troll-mod suit on.
I feel I must point out that there is no Biblical basis for being against pedophilia. Both the Old and the New Testament advocate breeding to every extent that it is possible. As David Spade says "If there is grass on the field, play ball"
Once a boy or girl is able to reproduce, the Bible instructs that they should be bound together in married "cleave together as one flesh" and raise up children "in the teaching of God and all manner of scripture". Simply put, the faster and more often you breed the stronger you are as a people.
That's why the Israelites were forbidden from masturbating. God said that it was better for an Israelite man to cum inside a prostitute than to let the sperm go to waste.
The Torah also indicates in several chapters that Gentile girls can be used for sexual pleasure as long as they are over four years old.
Homosexuality is a crime according to the Bible because it prevents procreation. Pedophelia is not a crime according to the Bible because it fosters procreation. Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.
but what does this have to do with roasting cows?
______________________
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
This is overlooked by almost everyone.
The point of the show, and of many of Morris' other shows, is that is an attack on self serving publicity hungry semi-celebritys. For example - Phil Collins in a "Nonce Sense" T-shirt (Nonce being an English slang word for paedophile) going to schools, and blindly repeating absolute gibberish fed to him by Morris.
Most people will say that Phil was doing a good thing, by trying to educate children. I side with Morris, that it was a self-publicising act on his behalf, and that if he had any real interest in protecting children he would have easily spotted it as a spoof. As Eammon Holmes (UK daytime TV presenter) did.
Other sections included a news report on how children were being crammed into football stadiums to "Keep them safe". How far is this from the truth? Media hysteria makes parents (Like myself) believe that it is impossible to allow children safely out at night, whereas attacks on children are at a relatively constant rate (Can't link to a newspaper - sorry).
Chris Morris has attacked not children with this show, but he has attacked the misleading media, and attention craving celebrities. For this he has been denounced, his actions upset the status quo - by showing celebrities as fools, by lambasting the newspapers who terrify us with exaggerations of how unsafe we are.
He is even described in the UK media as "Elitist" , a bludgeoning attempt to ensure people will not try to understand his comedy, for fear that they will be associated with such a negative connotation.
The UK viewing figures for this programme were 2 million at the start, 1 million at the end. Yet everyone cannot wait to tell each-other "How disgusting it was", in a ferocious attempt to prove that they too are not paedophiles. As though the very act of laughing at, or even watching the show inspires one to go out and attack children.
Mainstream media hates this man for exposing them as liars and fools.
That just makes me like him more ;-]
I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams.
She looks like an adult to me....
Moderators... PLEASE, spend some time reading through past articles of adequacy.org. People will say "trolling is not allowed on adequacy.org", etc. etc., but it's all part of the joke. Every story on the site is a troll. Many comments are as well. Don't take it seriously. I.e., the parent comment to this is _not_ Interesting. If anything, it should be marked as Funny (although not really, because I suspect the person who wrote the comment has no idea about the real intent of the web site).
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder.
I partly disagree. You're right in that murder has the worst outcome; that is, someone's dead. But I believe that pedophiles are, in general, worse than murderers. Murder is something to which most people can relate, at least to some extent. In a moment of rage, with varying degrees of justifiability, an ordinary person could commit a murder. Not so for a child-molester. Those people are deeply damaged and constantly dangerous.
Big Brother is considered wholesome family entertaiment in Britain? I think we may have found the problem...
~ Leilah
Pedophilia on te other hand is a taboo; today's taboo. Taboo subjects are subjects "not legitimate for discussion". "Taboo" implies a certain amount of irrationality. This should worry free thinking people. Past taboos have included non-Catholic religion, madness, witchcraft, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality (male and female), the earth turning around the sun, women having the same number of teeth as men, and so on.
Note that some of these "past taboos" are still very much current. Also the paedophilia definitly overlaps with sexuality in terms of things such as ages of consent. Especially in the "first world" where people now routinely reach biological maturity whilst they are legally considered "childern".
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Roving bands of viglantee thugs certainly dosn't help society.
I think the points made in that thread (about code red) also apply here...
This TV program was headline news for like 3 days. Haven't they got something better to report?
Nonetheless, the program was as funny as f*ck. I am glad that alot of the Americans enjoyed it. This suprised me, as I have had embarrising incidents using sarcasm/satire with americans.....
But if someone finds the content they find offending, no one is saying they must look at it
That is absolutely true. People seem to too easily blame someone else for their mistakes, in this case it is the internet. However, there is a group in our society that cannot think for themselves, or rather, do not know when to stop or look the other way. They are called kids. I teach kids from ages 5 to 12. I can see clearly how they are influenced by what they watch (TV more so than the internet), and for that I hold only the parents responsible.
You can't police the internet.>/i>
That is also true, but you have to educate the responsible people.
You just made the assumption that such sexual activity is actually damage. What about parents who force shots on their kids? How traumatic is that yet they are told to be good little boys and girls and endure it. Or force them to eat their vegetables and punish them when they don't?
:)
Or even chopping bits of babies' genitals. Which happens very often in the USA...
There's that Star Trek TNG episode where everyone runs around in skimpy outfits and it happy and carefree. The underlying message, though the closest they could come to saying it was have a bunch of teenage girls half naked, was that giving pleasure was considered a noble deed in their society. So women went out of their way to pleasure the male Federation officers and vice versa.
A problem with popular sci-fi (IMHO) is that all too often supposed "aliens" act far too much like contempoary American humans... Certainly in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such that situations like this are very noticable.
If you were to raise a child alone on a desert island and taught that child to fulfill your every sexual desire where would the child acquire any sense of wrong or damage? Wouldn't it seem a natural and pleasurable action? The giving and receiving of pleasure?
In the US and UK right now sex purely for exchange and sharing of pleasure would probably be considered highly abnormal anyway
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Imo, molesting a child is rape, and deserves the same punishment as rape, which in my opinion deserves the same punishment as murder or torture -- death, or life in prison.
However, this is a comedy, and Morris didn't mean to say that pedophilia's OK -- he was trying to show how fucking ignorant society is of the real issues. It was funny.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
What's "wrong" with someone raping, murdering or abusing someone else? Who says that shouldn't be the order of things?
Something being "wrong" probably should not prevent it being part of the plot of a novel or movie.
But that is my definition. Your mileage may vary. "Right" and "wrong" are tough to define. That's what society is for. So maybe I should say "societally undesirable".
You target the wrong guy: I am not being bigoted (notice the spelling) at all. On the contrary, I am advocating free debate (rather than unfree taboo) to come up with the answers.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
- It is very much a taboo. Even a show about it raises moral objections from the masses. A murderer gets complimented in jail; a pedophile gets murdered. My simple reply (in which btw I said I though pedophilia was distasteful!) elicited a "you sick fuck child rapist" response. Need I say more?
- There is a LOT to discuss. Is it indeed harmful? To whom? Can we minimise its incidenmce? Can we minimise its harm? Why are some people pedophiles? HOw can we minimise any harm caused? How should released pedophiles return to society? What therapies work best? Is the Internet bad for allwoing free communication? Should the Internet be banned becuase it contains child sex pictures? Is the harm partly or wholly culturally caused? I could go on for a while - and all these questions are taboo, as they generally just receive reactions like that one response to my post I saw that just saud "you sick fuck child rapist". That was a typical reponse not to a pedophile but to someone merely responding to a post ABOUT the subject! And that is what we should fix, and that is what the show no doubt hopes to achieve.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
The general view (and law) is that a person under the legal age _cannot_ consent.
The basic problem here is that legal ages vary so wildly that it makes more sense to suppose that the whole thing is based of circular reasoning. Rather than an age being derived from any kind of objective study.
- Who exactly decides what is legitimate for entertainment purposes? Only by free discussion can we work this out.
- At my last company we the joke policy was amended to preclude jokes that referred to race, religion, politics, sex, and sexuality: leaving exactly nothing to joke about. I would say that jokes about touchy subjects are very much legitimate.
- Which evidence says that discussing distasteful subjects makes us immune to them? I have seen many cop shows but am no more likely to murder anyone, or accept anyone murdering anyone, as a result.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
I think that it would be interesting to see how a show like this would be received in the US. In any case, the responce to this satire certinly justified its existance.
The real question is: who is manipulating the public's fear so as to create this fear of pedophilia, and what is their goal for doing so?
These files are nowhere to be found on gnutella, unfortunately. Gone. Totally. Poof.
Guess they must have cracked down on gnutella also.
I think most societies are in broad agreement that sexual contact between adults and children is hurtful to both parties at best and can leave long-lasting scars on all parties involved.
But is the issue age or "power". Currently the law does not distinguish between a teacher or babysitter (who may themselves be a "child" taking advantage of the person they are entrusted with and someone meeting a young person at a party/bar/club/etc.
I just have to take issue with one of your statements. "But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder." I cannot disagree with this more.
With murder, the act is over and done with. The damage is done, and no more damage is incurred. With pedophilia, the crime continues to inflict pain and damage, often for generations. Victims of pedophilia (or, for that matter, just about all sex crimes) are significantly more likely to have disfunctional sex lives and relationships for the remainder of their lives. This means that not only does the victim get punished, but that victim's lovers, and children, and so on. It is a pain that continues to inflict long after the initial damage is done.
That said, I applaud the work of the satirist. There is a level of witch hunts going on for all sorts of crimes, including pedophilia, rape, and drugs. All that it takes in today's world to absolutely ruin a person's life is to accuse that person of one of these crimes.
--Be human.
Perhaps its more about the child being forced by an adult (often a trusted adult) to do something they don't want to do (repeatedly), and then threatened (not necessarily overtly) by said trusted adult if they don't keep quite about it.
Probably a big part of the problem is that the child can easily be pressured into cooperating, as they naturally feel subordinate to the adult, and so are unlikely to reject advances. I don't see there being any way around that.
However, I'm speaking in terms of pre-adolescent children. People reaching sexual maturaty are more likely to be in control of themselves and able to choose their encounters, but most are less capaible than an adult, although they probably would not admit this to themselves, which could possible get them into a worse situation.
I'm no psycologist though.
I've never really encountered a taboo about dicussing why pedophilia is bad, or what exactly constitutes pedophilia. Discussing why its GOOD would tend to draw some attention though :)
We could also touch on the porn side of the issue. Should looking at pornographic (that is images depicting overtly sexual situations, not just nudes) pictures of under-age models be illegal? What if they are simply fictional illistrations? Computer models? Extremely realistic computer models? Computer generated movies?
At what point does such porn change from being a release to something that encourages actual physical acts? Should kiddie porn retain the completely taboo status it has in the USA and be eradicated in all forms? Or is that sort of zero tolerance policy unjust and unrealistic?
...whose military practices were so notoriously cruel that they garnered disaproval even among the Roman Senate. I found a good, if short, history of the Gaulish conquest here: http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar04.html
When I wrote my 2nd-year College paper on gun control, I was roasted for concluding that banning guns would only save 10-15 lives a year. I was nearly failed for it and the senior Law professor didn't speak to me for about a year. This all happened around the time of the Dunblane incident, when 17-18 children were killed by a man who never should have had a gun licence in the first place (what a shocker). The Government banned handguns. Between 10 and 15 deaths a year were traced to legally owned handguns, prior to the ban. Chalk one up for the good guys? I don't think so. If Members of Parliament are being conned by Brass Eye, may God have mercy on the future of democracy in Britain. I have been in America for two years so I have missed most of this fuss over paedophilia in Britain. It seems to be a re-run of the gun control problem: the new Labour Government is determined to do whatever the people want, no matter how ridiculous it is. I don't know what you Brits have done with my country while I've been away, but while I was there, Paedophilia was actually less of a problem than it is in here in America. Maybe Americans are a bit less - oh, how shall I put this - INSANE than the British are at the moment. I love my country but right now I'm not very proud of my countrymen.
It's off topic, but here's my opinion: I believe there is some body of evidence that suggests that children having sex with adults can indeed lead to emotional damage later on. Indeed, this may well be wholly or partly cultural (Pedophilia appears not to have done the old Greeks much harm, for instance), but of course our kids do live in our culture.
I suppose we could debate this - legitimate debate by the way! - but I think it's off topic here. Still, I quite agree we COULD, and SHOULD BE ABLE TO, debate it. Otherwise once again we get stuck with irrational opinions and fears - that is exactly what taboos achieve. Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
There's nothing distasteful about rational, reasoned discussion of a distasteful subject, any subject. Why are we all here talking about it if it's an illegitimate topic? My gripe with this sort of garbage program has nothing to do with the the distastefulness of the subject. I'm disturbed by the fact that, like so much of modern art and entertainment, the performer/artist intentionally offends while cloaking their "art" within the mantle of "social commentary". Modern artists/performers are often souless, directionless, without strong moral centers. The only avenue left for some: ridicule and parody the mores of the society that they live within, yet despise. This is a pattern that became pronounced in the 60's, waned in the 80's, and is now returning with a vengeance. Many Artists/Performers simply choose offensive material because it gains easy notoriety (this entire thread is a case in point). They lack the more subtle, refined, and crafted ability to comment on society in a productive, thoughtful manner.
A fundamental: while some societal values do change over time, some values MUST remain. Restrictions against the acts of murder, theft, cheating, lying, and many other forms of behaviour are, at the very least, neccesary for the continued existence of a stable and ordered society. At most, they're neccesary for the spiritual health of every human being. I often wonder if modern liberal thought perceives all mores as individual dominoes in a chain, each one falling when struck by the one before. Your statement, and others, has almost left me with the impression that the taboo against sex with children is just one more restriction on individual desires that society will one day overcome.
Finally, your piece mixes apples and oranges: you confuse the taboo that surrounds the act with the act itself and sceintific facts. You use murder as an example of something worse than paedophilia, as though to argue that paedophilia should be just as frequently parodied, joked about, etc. Herein lies a bit of the difference between the two: many (most?) people can relate, at least in part, to murder, at the very least in the sense of wishing violence towards someone, murder being the ultimate form of violence. However, which of us, in any way, finds a three year old sexually desireable? It's unthinkable, and it's impossible to imagine the sickness of a mind so contorted. Of course, you might argue that we merely find such a thing unimagineable because it's taboo. Other's, and I'm in this camp, maintain that taboos are tools developed by society to safeguard against the most harmful forms of human behaviour. The taboo surrounding paedophilia exists for good reason, and little thought is required to understand the importance of that particular taboo. Sure, lets discuss the issue rationally and intelligently, but lets not make something so horrible and debased a subject to be joked about by the next Leno or Letterman.
Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children. But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder. Yet murder is a legitimate subject for satire, comedy, thrillers, whodunnits: a whole industry has sprung up around it. Ask P.D. James, or read about Kinsey Millhone.
Pedophilia on te other hand is a taboo; today's taboo. Taboo subjects are subjects "not legitimate for discussion". "Taboo" implies a certain amount of irrationality. This should worry free thinking people. Past taboos have included non-Catholic religion, madness, witchcraft, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality (male and female), the earth turning around the sun, women having the same number of teeth as men, and so on.
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
except they didn't annihilate Gaul.
Caesar beat Vercingetorix after a year-long siege and accepted Vercingetorix's surrender. (vercingetorix then went to Rome to provide 'entertainment')
conquered Gaul, yes.. annihilitated - no way.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I think the idea behind this show is great. The specific issue (in this case, pedophilia) is really rather unimportant. I'd love to see a similar show done in the US, outing celebrities and politicians on both sides of an issue who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when discussing Intellectual Property and Copyright Law, environmental issues like global warming, internet law, energy concerns, and the like. In fact, I have a fledgeling site running Slash called Simon Jester where I'm trying to do just that... on a smaller scale and in a much less sensational manner. www.simonjester.com
woof!
Most of them do look suspiciously like adults.. umm ooops, i mean, i would think they do... not like i look at child pr0n.. oh dear i'll shut up now.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
here
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Shouldn't the internet just take care of itself and shouldn't society ignore the net if they don't like what they see? The net ain't an integral part of society (as of yet ;)), much as it seems to be. But if someone finds the content they find offending, no one is saying they must look at it: they can just forget about it and move on to something that does interest them. You can't police the internet.
The net is a free medium, and although I can understand that some people want it to be controlled, how likely is internet policing?
You were expecting a sig?
I honestly can't tell. Or is is 'more of the same', ie a spoof of these people. Is Chris Morris actually behind it?
The 'Open Letter to Channel 4' is fucking hilarious, it had me pissing myself.
Humour Is Subjective (i.e., do not tell other people what constitutes a funny subject)
Take an example: If I were to make a joke regarding Rome annihilating Gaul, would you respond in disgust and anger? Probably not. If I were to make a joke about the Holocaust, would you, then? Probably, yes, indeed. Why? Because you feel more of a close personal attachment to the event of the Holocaust than to the even of the conquering of Gaul. They're both tragic genocides on a similar scale. One is not greater than the other, but we have more personal, emotional interest in tip-toeing around the issue of the Holocaust. That doesn't make it rational in any way shape or form, however.
neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
So because legislation is a "serious issue", it should not be joked about? Are you saying that any joke that involves circumstances that are less than beneficial should not be made? Making fun of our misfortunes is nothing if not the basis for comedy itself. Generally, I find that people who refuse to view the world with any sense of humour become extremely cynical.
His most enjoyable work I believe, is Blue Jam. It's nothing short of brilliant.
Available from Cookd and Bombd
No, _you're_ wrong. The internet isn't some sort of evil robot that grabs children and puts them in porno films. Its just a place to view information that has already been acquired. When you solve a problem you don't attack it at the widest point. you attack it at a bottle-neck. The internet is the widest point where a large number of people view a relatively small number of things. If you want to get rid of child pornography, stop the _small_ number of people that create it not the _large_ number of people that host and view it.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
> grown people should not have sex with children
Please defend this statement without resorting to a priori or ad hominim premises. (ie: You can't say "because the Bible says so", "because it just is", or "because your an Anonymous Coward".)
I have my own reasons for disapproving of pedophilia, but I doubt that many people have given it rational thought.
>"It was the most grievous breach of taste I have ever witnessed on TV," wrote a Mail columnist, Simon Heffer,
Obviously hasn't watched much tv, or typed: 'lolita hardcore torture' into gnutella.. lol
>"and a program that only a small percentage of the psychologically sick could have found enjoyable."
Oh dear, i'm very sick then...
The best thing is the fact that they repeated the show the very next night even after the news that day. And no-one complained when they showed 'Cartman joins NAMBLA' on the same channel... Oh well, it just goes to show how clueless our politicians and celebrities and general public and media are over here. I was looking forward to the next series, however i doubt he'll be working anymore...
>"Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "
I agree
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
A couple of weeks ago there was a protest against paedophiles which was reported on TV here in the UK. The first image was of a man carrying a sign saying "Pedofils out".
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Who's follies are he ridiculing. Collins and Blackwood. That might fit a dictionary definition, but it certainly isn't hard hitting.
That may well be the point and its certainly the point of good satire, but Morris isn't even close. If he had induced the politicians to say the dumbass things they've said about his show as part of his programme, it might have been good satirical fare.All Morris shows is that minor celebs will do anything for exposure. Stop the fucking presses.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The climate in the UK is very hostile towards men. In fact, British Airways has an official policy of not seating young children next to men when children fly alone. This is discrimination and stereotyping of men - could you imagine if blacks were treated this way?
2 30 206.shtml
I know this is offtopic, but Slashdot has a brother web site (based on Slash) that covers news on men's rights issues:
http://www.mensactivism.org
They deal with the decline of men's civil liberties with regard to sex crimes, and many other topics.
An Anony Mouse
PS - the BritAir source can be found at:
http://www.mensactivism.org/articles/01/03/17/0
Want to see some good kiddie porn? Check out the makeup/lighting/clothing/hairstyles of young girls in television commercials. How about Britanny Spears?
If people woke up to the fact that there are sexual images of children, all around them, maybe I would take this whole 'save the children' thing a little more seriously.
It is ok for the RIAA to parade a 'pre-teen-appearing' Britanny Spears in the media to sell product? It is okay for them to do it to sell clothing or shampoo?
Marketing and Advertising uses not so-subtle techniques like these with abandon, just because it is not seedy and badly-lite dosnt mean it is acceptable.... or does it?????
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Save questioning what, exactly, makes paedophilia tantamount to child abuse? Any scars left on the child are solely a product of the society's reaction to such an affair, disregarding rape. A newborn child is a blank slate by default, everything is imprinted.
(Admittedly, I have no kids. I also do not lust after children or possess any religious beliefs. I consider myself rather objective on the entire issue.)
Also, I note the use of the word "morals" in your post. Morals are irrelevant. They are naught but societal imprinting.
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
>1.Sexually explicit images of children, which were even classified on-air as being "obscene" by a former head of the Obscene >Publications Branch, were shown to the >unsuspecting viewing public. Broadcasting this foul artwork must surely have provided >cheap titillation to any perverts watching the programme.
The FORMER head was giving snap judgements. This section was showing how the people who decide what's obscene simply pull arbitrary judgements from thin air (for instance, a barbie doll with a penis attached to it isn't unacceptable, a womens naked body with a childs head grafted on isn't unacceptable, but a barbie doll with a penis attached and a childs head is)
>* Mockery was made of last summer's anti-paedopile protests by concerned mothers. It is simply unacceptable to criticise the >genuine fears of honest law-abiding citizens in this >manner.
These protests were absolutely disgusting. They were made by ill-informed people (banners used often had peadophile spelt incorrectly), their fears were totally illegitimate, and the hysteria came to such heights that a peadiatritcian was chased from her home my a mob. It is perfectly acceptable to mock peoples fears if they are ill advised fears that harmed innocent people. (We do not still respect the fears of the German people during krystallnacht for instance)
>* The sickening music of the notorious American paedophile rap musician "JLb-8" was openly promoted on this programme.
Is this letter a joke? (If so I shall continue writing as I'm rather enjoying this). Anyhow, JLb-8 is entirely ficticious, and this section of the programme satirised both the tabloid media's sensationalist views of rappers, and how young, middle class children buy music by people like eminem, despite it not being to do with anything they have, or will ever, experience.
>Numerous celebrities, including members of parliament, newscasters and a musician were ridiculed by their unsuspecting >involvement with this programme.
Celebrities thrust themselves into the public eye deliberatly, and as such are liable to be ridiculed, if they wanted to avoid such ridicule, they could have done the tiniest bit of reaserch into what they were saying. This section also made a valid point; that celebrities will endorse anything, so we cannot trust them alone to 'sell' a charity.
> Worst of all, real children appeared in this programme. It is clearly wrong to expose them to this sinister subject matter at such a >tender age. The experiences of this programme may permanently damage these poor infants.
This is a disgusting attitude in my opinion. Surely we should expose children in order to educate them about peadophilla, sex and other taboo subjects, rather than keep them in the dark (to maintain the victorian notion of childhood innocence). Knowledge of peadophillia means the child is more likely to report this crime in the unlikely event that they expereince it.
Futhermore this 'crusade for innocence' has resulted in Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, as when this innocent child becomes a teenager they will be pressured to have sex, and because they know so little about it (contraception, and how to say 'no') they do it, and ruin their lives by becoming pregnant. This is why the final thing in the programme is a young teenager saying she will lose her virginity 'tomorrow, maybe'.
That's all I can think of right now, and this as been written pretty hastily so don't be suprised if there are copious spelling mistakes
P.S. I'm pretty sure that this 'open letter' was one big joke.
Rape is assault. The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault
However it is not politically correct to consider so, indeed attempting to do so tends to be regarded as "trivialising it".Morons who equate rape with murder trivialize both, and are part of the problem that causes rape victims to be set apart culturally. Do you give a shit about rape victims? Then stop making them feel like their life is over. Stop insisting that they've been irreparably harmed.
Not all of these people are "morons", some of them appear to be very smart in milking the whole issue for their own (typically sexist) political kudos.
Hey, thats a really great show. I always loved the British humour... Try watching it, hope the servers aren't /.ed soon...
Help the guys at CookdAndBombd by using their mirrors:
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
http://mirror5.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror5.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror6.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror6.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror7.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror7.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror8.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror8.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror9.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror9.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror10.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror10.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror11.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror11.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror12.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror12.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror13.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror13.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror14.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror14.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror15.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror15.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror16.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror16.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about.
But it's one which works well...
If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
Also build the bus so that it won't go anywhere unless all passengers are belted in. Maybe also prevent parents from acting as a taxi service to school children, creating dangeous congestion and air pollution in an area full of pedestrians.
Is it me, or do none of the links for either the AVI or RA file and its mirrors work?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
yeah, that's a really brilliant solution: cloning. Let pedophiles clone themselves so that they can molest a younger version of themselves. That way it won't harm anybody else. Right?
The hysteria surrounding all this has to be seen to be believed - for some reason paedophile terror has really taken off in the UK in the last few years, culminating in hilarious/terrifying events like the attack on the house of a paediatrician by a mob of (presumably semi-literate) vigilantes a while back.
For the record, my mother (56, and a psychotherapist) watched the programme and found it amusing to the point of being life-threatening.
Steff
The cautious among us may respond that such material would still be harmful because it might encourage acts of molestation against real children. I would challenge this assumption. I have only my own experience to judge by I guess, but I know that in my case pornography does not encourage me to go out and rape women.
She read about it. How's that for detailed and useful knowledge of a topic you will be deciding on?
"Rape can be funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."
Get a sense of humour.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
From there he did a radio show which became the BBC show The Day Today, which offered surreal news stories combined with the best parody of news reportage as stands in the Western world I've ever seen. His vaguely threatening goodnight, the use of insane graphics and pounding music... But then he got Brass Eye.
In the UK, humor and sex aren't as big a deal as violence, and you'd be amazed at what's shown on television here compared to the US. Before Brass Eye was even aired it became a news story, as several celebrities and politicians complained to the commisioning network, Channel 4, that he had gone too far.
During the height of Ecstacy hysteria in the UK, he had gotten politicans and celebrities to denounce the evils of a dangerous new drug ruining our children, called CAKE. As in, "We must ban cake." He did it so brilliantly that one of the Members of Parliament who he recorded denouncing cake ("which affects the part of the brain known as Shatner's Bassoon, which affects perception of time - cake is a made up drug, made up of chemicals") asked questions about it in Parliament. The then head of Channel 4 tried to get Morris to tone down the show's vitriol and abuse of celebrities. In the Science on Trial episode he had several UK celebrities talking about the dangers of "heavy electricity" which was killing people in the Far East. So Morris put a subliminal message in the final episode, calling his boss a cunt, which led to statements that he would never work for Channel 4 again. He returned to radio.
Until this year, when changes at Channel 4 led to a rebroadcast of the series and the commisioning of the new one off special on pedophilia. He had a famous London radio DJ stating that pedophiles had more genes in common with crabs than you or I, and there's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact! It went on. The result was instant, knee jerk tabloid hysteria, I think best represented in this picture. What you should know is that earlier this year, thanks to a name and shame campaign a major UK tabloid did on paedophiles, a paedatrician was attacked by an angry mob and had her car firebombed. A few days after airing of the programme, several politicans got in on the act, admitting they hadn't seen the show. One of them is even blind!
But thankfully the British public have shown their sense of good humor and more calls of support were received on Channel 4's complaints line then actual complaints, so the entire issue is now being hushed up.
I think what really grates about Morris is that he deigned to show that you cannot trust any of the mainstream media you partake of, that celebrity endorsements count for nothing. My favorite moment on the paedophilia special was a presenter for the BBC's technology show stating that internet padeophiles can use penis shaped sound waves to molest children. I think it's far more frightening to the public to know that those people that put a comforting, sickly gloss on the world as it is today are patently full of shit. The result of Morris' work may be greater than any piece of culture I've had all year, because it's made me question everything. I can no longer watch the news without laughing and being shocked by the idiocy and dramatics of it all. For that he deserves to be knighted.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
I was actually a pretty sexually active child at around age 6, with my own peers. Children are sexually active, it's just not a subject that's ever brought up.
Now I don't think a child/adult relationship would ever be healthly. There's too much a power/mental gap for such a relationship to ever be anything other than coercive. But the subject is way blown out of porportion in today's media.
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about. If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
It's a hostile world for children, but not because of Evil Pedophiles lurking behind every corner.
Adequacy.org ran the article Open Letter to Channel 4: Brass Eye Was Unacceptable , denouncing Channel4 and BrassEye for these escapades.
If you want a good summary of the opposition, then I'd suggest reading it. It's a good read in any event.
I'm not sure that there's as much of a taboo against discussing pedophilia as much as there is a taboo against participating in it. I think most societies are in broad agreement that sexual contact between adults and children is hurtful to both parties at best and can leave long-lasting scars on all parties involved. At worst, its an example of predatory behavior by adults against weaker, inexperienced and immature children.
So when you say there's a taboo against discussing pedophilia, I think most people would respond "What's there to discuss?" I doubt there's any room at all for change in attitudes without endorsing what is tanatamount to child abuse.
I think the only space for any exploration is "When does mature sexuality begin?" and there's probably sincere people who think that in the special, unique contexts an adult-sexually mature teen relationship is possible. But beyond that sphere, there's little moral or practical room for movement on the issue of pedophilia, which is why people get cranky when you talk about it.
I find it amusing that the other side of the page is a 1/2 page photo and article about how a 15year olds breasts are getting larger.
On one hand: She's 15, underage for most countries, on the other, well duh, it's natural. They grow.
Thats basicly like molesting your children? Thier basicly your DNA mix with someone elses right? Clonings not the solution. The whats is acceptible (sorta). Is drawings and literotica, maybe mock kiddie porn. (where every one is really over 18 or whatnot.) Of course if someone is having thier thoughts consantly then they need thairepy (sp?).
Later on, when you realize it's true, it makes you cry.
The problem with elected officials is that people tend to put them on a pedestal. They assume that all the words coming out of that official's mouth are blessed by God and unarguably true. Showing the people, dramatically and unarguably, that this is false is an absolute necessity. If the official is such a plonker that he must be reminded to breathe upon occasion, calling peoples' attention to that fact is also a good thing. Maybe then he won't remain an elected official for much longer.
Elected officials can not be expected to be experts on everything any more than you can. The fact that they are not the least bit informed about something that touches as many of their constituents as the internet does should be worrying a lot of people. I also expect my elected officials to get help from experts when they are going into territory with which they are completely unfamiliar. You'd think there'd be some little alarm bells in their head going "I know nothing on this topic; maybe I'd better ask someone before I go shooting my mouth off..."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why don't we alter the DNA so that the kids aren't hurt by molestation. Heck then is would be a problem, rape could be legalized and be an acceptable part of our culter. Right?
Have we finally found the root of michael's rabid privacy campaign?
When you kill someone, thier dead. Thier family and freinds are in pain. The dead aren't in pain.
Pedophilia the child is in pain. Thier family and freinds are in pain. More pain equals worse crime.
The DivX downloads dies a few hours ago.
The site has now been updated... now displays 'Closed for legal reasons', with a BBC test page...
Shame... Suppose I'll just have to borrow a VHS copy from a mate at work...
Ye gods, anytime someone claims to do something "For the children", you know we're in trouble.
Look, a child-worshipping culture is just as bad as one that worships nobility. You teach children, you educate children, you do not sacrifice freedom or liberty for children.
An exemplary quote. In other words, Mr. Rapson, in a fit of "for the children", read something he did not understand or know anything about. The fact that he read it, no questions, based entirely on the claim that it was "for the children" ought to prove the satirist's case.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I was surprised that the original poster missed that element of the picture -- I thought that the comparison of a 15 year old's breasts and the outrage over Morris' "sick" show was the whole point!
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
This guy had concerned and serious public spokesmen warning the public solemnly about:
This is the funniest thing I've heard of for _decades_. When I read the few details about the 'Cake' show in another thread, my brain sort of went 'gleep!' and shorted out. There's a difference between stupid and unbearably, gloriously loony- and not even the Goons had _real_ _people_ mouthing this sort of thing in all earnestness.
Oh, how wrong you are :) it's a terrible shame Peter Sellers didn't live to see this :)
> Making Phil Collins (Phil Collins for fucks sake) look a bit stupid, is not satire
But it is. His threat to sue Morris is even more ridiculous when you consider he appears as the "comedy" paedophile Uncle Ernie in _Tommy_, on The Who's 1989 video _The Who: Live_.
Unmissable.
awww you poor baby. we'll send someone over right away to change your diapers for you, you poor baby.
The people that run the site have emphatically said that the videos and the site being down has NOTHING to do with "The Slashdot Effect". It is for legal reasons which they have hinted that they cannot explain without getting into deeper trouble. So far, 90% of the assumptions are that Channel 4 is probably pretty pissed that everyone is seeing the show on the web instead of watching their reruns, which is understandable, except for the fact that msot of the people watching it on the web are Americans that have no chance of seeing it in a non-pirated/copied manner.
Looks like the avi and divx links have been taken down for "legal reasons".
Anyone know what's up with that?
When the cookdandbombd .avi mirrors were first linked to from the Plastic forums, they were immediately unavailable due to high demand. I was able to download the first avi from mirror4 and the second avi from mirror5 (only mirrors 1-3 had been linked to from the main page), but most Plastic readers probably didn't think of that. Now, cookdandbombd has stopped distributing the avis, and their front page says "closed for legal reasons" (copyright?).
What if, instead of hosting the avis themselves, they had put the avis on freenet and given out the key on their web site? That would have taken care of the Plastic effect (which, btw, is an order of magnitude weaker than the Slashdot effect) and also any legal problems arising from distributing the copyrighted show.
The shareholder is always right.
-Daniel
Ownyourphone.com. Custom ringtones, cheap and easy
Or even better, FreeNet, and where's the key?
Paedophilla is one of those things people go into hysteria about without understanding it. Paedophiles are people (usually male, age 15 or older) who are attracted soly, or almost soly, to pre-pubescencants (not 'children'). Much of this internet-paedophilla hype is bogas because the under-14s simply don't chat on the internet unattended.
I am unable to go into the prefession (speech-therapy) that I wanted because people in this country have an attitude that if any male shows any disire to work with children (teaching or otherwise), then they must be a *paedophile*. Teachers are banned from hugging children (even if they are hurt) because it could be 'paedophilic behaviour", men receive dirty looks if they go anywhere near a swimming-pool with children in it, 3 & 4 year olds are given instructions at kindergarten about how to beware of paedophilic men, fathers are sometimes afraid to hug their own children in public, men are afraid to help out at school & school events, 17 year old boys who make love to their 15 year old girlfriends are charged with 'rape' (for being 'paedophiles'), hysterical news reports go on TV about 'paedophiles' molesting 15 year olds, & so on & so on.
The hysteria that surrounds paedophilla does infinately more harm to society than actual paedophilla does. All the means of protection society uses are doing more harm than good, and don't work anyhow. Paedophiles are actually quite rare, most perverted idiots who molest children aren't even paedophiles!
Are there any mirrors or anywhere else that has this? I was trying to be an informed individual, and watch it and make my own opinions, but it seems that every link on the site is dead, and there is 'Closed for legal reasons' on the page.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Hans Gilde wrote: "a comedian in the UK produced a TV show ... in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: '... pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible.'"
4 93 ,528478,00.html
In point of fact that was the comedian Richard Blackwood, who's just been (successfully) sold to US broadcasters as the "British Eddie Murphy". His stated excuse was that "I thought they were genuine. They had a website".
Incidentally, there's a summary of the "H.O.E.C.S" games sequence at:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7
Slightly offtopic, but here goes -
I think the cake episode just highlighted what a load of vote-whores our MPs are - they condemned a fictional 'drug' (chocolate cake) without the slightest background knowledge.
When it comes to drug issues, MPs are more interested in maintaining the status quo that 'these drugs good, these drugs baaaad' (said in an orwellian 1984-esque '4 legs good, 2 legs baaaad' manner )because it brings instant electability - and scores of Daily Mail readers along for the ride - without having to require much reasoning ability or really engaging the issues.
After I posted it I realised that was probably the point of the scan.
Yeah, well, there will always be idiots.
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
pinkNoise
bummer; maybe the exposure of getting /.-ed was more than chilled.cream.com needed. Since around 5:30pm cdt the site has replaced content with "Closed for legal reasons." Guess i'll be looking for those episodes on Gnutella ;-)
Any comment attributed to him regarding what he is is bullshit and I guarantee he never said it.
stop both. by getting it off the internet, it's just one more distribution channel destroyed. it doesn't SOLVE the problem, but it DOES slow the growth. that's important.
Reminds me of this kid for a science fair project, held a poll asking people to support a ban on the production and use of Dihydrogen Monoxide, a substance which is discharged by most industries, is a major component of acid rain, causes break failure on automobiles and has been found in cancer cells in cancer patents. 70% responded with a YES, 22% had no opinion, and only 8% knew what Dihydrogen Monoxide was and said no.The title of the fair entry? A Survey on 'How gullible are we?' (Dihydrogen Monoxide, is H2O a.k.a water)
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Clarify..
Did you mean it when you said "..argue that same-sex incest is not immoral" ?
getting rid of the double negative, "..argue that same-sex incest is moral" (well...close enough)
I'm not sure I see why this is an exception to what you said..
I'm desperately trying to think of example where you could state why this would be wrong just using your rules, but can't.
I can only assume you are trolling yourself, which is a shame because I liked the other points you made.
But I would not intervene if say two brothers at age of 30 wanted to try to have sex with each other..
I might think yuck, but i think yuck at gay ppl, but i totally accept homesexuality etc. - just don't do it myself..
Remember, PLEASE share them back out once you get them! I've had 73 ppl download these from me already and there's only like 3 ppl on this section of gnet sharing this. Thanks.
-Jade E.
Umm, in the post above, where it reads:
:-)
> a class which i made right here in the U.S.
it should actually say:
> a class which is made right here in the U.S.
Now, there's an example of one little letter, or the lack thereof, *completely* changing the meaning and context of a phrase! Jumpin'-Jeezus-on-a-Pogo-Stick, I almost fell out of my seat in embarrassment when I read my own typo.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
What people simply don't realize is that the exploitation of little kids is all around us. People are just too nieve to realize it. I saw a show on HBO (I believe) 3-4 months back about this little girl that professionally starred in beauty pagents. Her mother grilled her constantly over walking right, talking right, smiling right, sticking out her chest ("strut it like you'll have it in 10 years"), her numerous dance routines and memorized lines, etc... The demand put on that little girl was extreme. I believe the mother home schooled her as well so they could spend more time in training. The mother would pay professional makeup artists to literally make this girl look like a little Barbie Doll. They made this little girl (eight years old I think) look like a miniature whore. It was sickening. The girl made a mistake on stage during a speaking part and started bawling when she got off stage. The mother ripped her for messing up her lines and now her makeup. It was disguisting. The mother was exploting the little girl. Hell I heard Shirley Temple was viewed as crude by many because of her short dresses and scenes with black men (tap dancing and what not). This shit is nothing more than a witchhunt and the media is doing nothing more than fueling the fire. School shootings are the same way. The media make it out to be a disease that is spreading across the nation and getting wirse every day. That's total bullshit. The number of violent incidents on school campus is dropping every year. It's less than half what it was in in the late 70's. The media will never tell you that. Blood and guts sell. Controversy sells. Early in my mother's teaching career she worked at a school in southern Kansas. A girl (known as a slut to everyone) accused the woodshop teacher of something (touching, sexual assault, I don't remember). She had no proof he did it. He had know that he didn't. Her story kept changing every time she was questioned. Never the less he was suspended. There was a big public outcry against him. Blah blah blah. You've heard it all before. Finally he left and went elsewhere. Shortly after that the girl confessed that she made it up because he gave her a bad grade in his class. It didn't matter. If you go to that town today and bring up his name with a parent around the age of say 55 now they'll probably remember his name and go on and on about his sexual misconduct and shit like that. The truth came out. No one listened. He was still run off. Hmm, I'm starting to rant now. Well, let me close with something I've long since believed. The media should be held accountable for everything they speak or write. If they accuse a teacher of sexual misconduct, they should be held legally accountable if that person is found to be innocent. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they can't print something that's not proven to be true. Say for example someone is hauled into court on sexual charges. State that. Don't print something weeks before on how some kid said person X did something to me. Kids say things. Wait until there is an actual fact. Then print it. Someone being hauled into court is a fact. It's not a fact that they did something but it is a fact that there is enough reason to let a jury or judge decide. Also, if that story is put on the front page with a 72 point headline, the retraction should be just as big and on the front page. It shouldn't be hidden back under the Classifides. It should be given just as much importance as the original story was given. Well, enough of my ramblings. We now return you to your regularly scheduled force-fed media hype.
No..... You just used what I said. Its you that is arguing for the child to not tell their family. Don't assume my point A leads to your point B.
nitpicking, but he is *not* an american
Strangely enough, Victor-Lewis Smith, who appears to be an old rival of Chris Morris, advanced exactly the same arguments as you did. No doubt he's just cheesed off because being similar to Morris in many ways (eg gross-out humour, prank phone calls) he's now going to be thought of as Chris Morris-lite. Which he is really, since his phone pranks are pretty childish to be honest, and his recent attempts at comedy (eg "The Gay Daleks" from "TV Offal") are defintely inferior to Morris' "Blue Jam" and "Brasseye".
Call me a hardcore liberal, but I support every word you said, and I find it rather sad that you were modded down to 0.
I just happen to support people's rights to do anything they want when people aren't being harmed. I must be a sick, sick person, right?
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.