I did not say I approve of people who have sex with children. Your approval is revealed by the way you refer to them as "people who decide to sexually pleasure children", which comes across has you putting a positive connotation with it.
Describing an action does not denote approval. Of course the way people interpret my words can be revealing.
when you said " I suspect... is actually just self justification" You are implying (or so it appears to me) that I have sex with children. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (that you were not trying to be a Troll).
but you really should be more careful what you say. Yes you are right. And thanks for pointing that out.
My main argument is premised against fanaticism. And yes killing to me is fanatical. Sex is pleasure, there is no other way to describe it; and this (to me at least) cannot be compared with murder (on a moral basis). Taking somebody's life is worse than "pleasuring" somebody. I don't use the cliche's because they have obvious connotations of violence with them (like "rape"). If you have read articles on Slashdot and elsewhere there is usually more FUD associated with issues like this than reality. And people often have their own definitions of "rape", "exploitation", etc., to suite their own arguements.
And I often find the people who are most actively opposed on issues like this to be hypocrites (I'm not implying you are, but it is often the case). It's much like people who have called me gay in real life. I do not think of having sex with men; but obviously the people who have called me gay do think of this (men having sex, homosexuality, etc). This is offensive to me (not homosexuality, but people projecting their own beleifs onto me, or other people). One person once told me I look too good to be straight. Yes just like homophobes project their own sexuallity on people, I suspect there is a large amount of hypocrisy with people and their sexuality in other areas as well.
The sad thing is that people cannot have an intelligent debate about this without the opposing viewpoint being projected onto the person's actual behavior. Yeah I remember one time I wrote an essay about "drugs" for school when I was twelve years old and so my father thought I was a drug addict. Yeah people may think I am weird, but I generally tend to think the same of other people.
Since you are unlikely to get modded Troll for this I will spell it out: You are a Troll. You are also a liar and you are obviously a person who will say or do anything in an attempt to hurt people:
I suspect your obvious approval of "people who decide to sexually pleasure children" I did not say I approve of people who have sex with children. Your willingness to make up statements like this is evident in most people in favour of murder and other nastiness; you are dishonest and and trustworthy. You should feel ashamed of yourself, but you probably don't have the moral character or intellect to admit to yourself how immoral you are.
self justification Another Troll, and a very pathetic one. Dishonest and libelous as well. Once again you should be ashamed.
Nevertheless I find myself in agreement with swb. Again, since you agree with murder; your moral character is showing through.
Should you act out this decision in my presence, my "psychological imperative to kill" is likely to provide me with the decisive advantage in the ensuing "debate". Believe me I have dealt with bullies before. At a very young age I realized that I could actually fight back against Tough Guys and asshats like you and actually win. I wish I knew where you lived.
Many people consider the use of lethal force justified in protecting their own children from sexual exploitation. Popularity does not make something right nor moral. Of course since you use the term "sexual exploitation" I can only presume that you are implying that pedophiles sexually exploit children, and that you consider "sexual exploitation" wrong, and that you consider killing people who do this wrong to be justified. Your arguments are (IMHO) as sick and as vile as swb's comments.
Your view that people ought to be imprisoned for holding such views has no rational justification and cannot be implemented in a free society. Reality check: there is no such thing as a "free" society. Then again, I could say the same thing about your beliefs. There are many, many instances of witch-hunts, genocides, etc. All of these were considered morally righteous and were/are popular in many areas / times / circumstances. I would rather have bad people done away with rather than people who decide to sexually pleasure children.
Your solution is worse than the problem you wish to solve. Wrong again. People who have a psychological imperative to kill are bad, and much worse than people who have sex with children. Your perversion is showing through.
so when you say you aren't hurting the children you fuck, do you speak from experience? The sad thing is that when people are brave enough to post comments that go against the norm they will inevitably get Flamed. When I see poor arguments, logical phalicies, or very obvious and outragious propogranda I will point that out. I don't particularly care if this propoganda supports my belief systems or not. To me an asshat is an asshat no matter what side of the fence they are on.
So yes, my morality takes priority over popularity; both in cyberspace and in real life. Let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately your disingenous and libelous flames and emotional appeals are more often the norm than not.
Is this the kind of rationalization gymnastics you perform after taking sexual advantage of children?
Of course, if I ever caught you having sex with MY child, I'd execute you like a dog. I would far rather have people like you put in jail pre-emptively. The fact that you still haven't been modded as Flamebait is scary. Your irrationality is far too common. When I was younger I used to stay up late at night, sneek out of the house, and slash tires of people like you (no kidding). It's the only form of justice that is possible in some cases.
Ok... so maybe we should institutionalize them, instead? Because they're preying on children and we can't allow it, even in your morally-relativistic universe. It's definitely not a victimless crime. Nope; first thing we need to do is change our irrational and puritanical attitudes towards human sexually around.
One cannot have a rational dialogue if people demonize the subject matter.
Doesn't matter that it's genetic. Peadophilia is NOT genetic.
and yes it does harm children Wrong again. There is no, none, ZERO research that proves that sex does harm to ANYBODY no matter what their age.
I just don't want them psychologically scarring kids. I can presume you are a hypocrite as most Flamers like yourself are. I personally don't want religious programs shown on TV where children can watch them because of the tremendous amount of psychological harm that can be done, but I don't expect people like you to try to put religious people away in jails or mental institutions to cure thier "mental illness".
The ancient Greeks and Romans were monsters, by the way. They considered cunnilingus more morally wrong than rape. "Rape", or do you mean Peadophilia? I worry more about the Monsters of today.
From your post:
I spoke to someone from Australia's DOCS once. He told me that what happens to the victim of paedophilia is horrendous. From your subsequent post:
I would suggest you research the dizzying amount of data that shows that paedophilia has a devastating effect on children. And you also go on to say:
Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And unfairly get modded as Insightful!!!!!! Your biases and those of the moderators are obvious. It is interesting that people who tend to find harm in pleasurable acts (sex, drugs, gambling, etc), don't impose your same morals on more harmful activities like abusing children through religious indoctrination or FORCING them to go to religious schools. As is always the case with the Morally Righteous; hypocrisy is almost always very evident.
And in another post:
P.S. DOCS is the Dept of Community Services. Do your own research before spouting off in future. I actually thought you were somebody arguing against your claim, but then I looked at the Nick that was posting. You are fouling your own arguments. Yes DOCs is hardly an objective institution to get reliable information from, as it is there job to seek out "abuse". Without (sexual) "abuse" there would be no reason for their existence.
You also say:
Do your own research before spouting off in future. Yes hypocrisy, or perhaps just a LACK OF TRUTHFULNESS is apparent in your own posts.
I would suggest you research the dizzying amount of data that shows that paedophilia has a devastating effect on children. I have seen ZERO VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC evidence that paedophilia has a "eveastating effect on children" It is a Troll because you are making outlandish claims without backing them up whatsoever. Unfortunately somebody decided to mark you as Insightful however. So there you go.
This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate No the submitter is just pointing out another very obvious piece of yellow journalism.
As with any piece of unobjective writing that tries to make itself appear based in science; it uses pejoritive terms like: "abuse" "molesters" "victims" "pornography consumers" "Far from being a marginal loner" "abused" "children targeted"
(all of which have a negative conotation, but in and of themselves have no basis in a truely scientific or objective enquiry).
If one replaced the terms used for Pedophile with the term "Heterosexual male" and the word for child with the word "woman" then I can assure you that this language would not be used because the article would appear to be nothing more than feminist extremism, but in the think-of-the-children which-hunting paranoid world in which we live, this appears to be the new normal.
From the article,
"As their stimulation threshold rises, they feel the need for stronger and stronger material This sounds EXACTLY like the anti-drug propoganda "science" that stated that marijuana was a slippery slope to heroine.
Let's leave the propaganda to the fanatics
The internet provides paedophiles with opportunities to seek contacts with minors under false identities Again this is NOT surprising since pedophilia is illegal and considered socially inappropriate in most places throughout the world. This is just stating the obvious in many cases.
Again from the article:
"He begins to see them as sex objects instead of children." Of course if a person is having sex with somebody then that other person can be considered as a "sex object", age is irrelevent, but the biases of the "expert" and the journalist is obvious.
There is controversy over the extent to which paedophiles respond to therapy. There is an obvious biase that having sex with somebody under the age of 18 (the UN definition of a child) is a mental illness. If sexual attraction is in fact NOT unnatural then it would not be surprising that "paedophiles" cannot be "cured". It is however common for people to label deviant behaviour with the "mental illness" meme.
Like all poor slashdot posts, the journalist speeks often of "experts" without citations. The journalist does not even bother to define peadophilia but instead just uses a generic term that often denotes a very broad base of behaviours. Yep, just another piece of poor quality yellow journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion:
The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. This is possible in the current theoretical understanding of physics as in Newton's First Law of Motion. The problem is that energy loss occurs through friction or resistance. So what one needs is a device that creates MORE energy than it creates.
I wonder how much RMS's stance is more rhetorical than real.
I think he is viewing (and projecting his views) of the attitudes of the types of people who deal in closed source software, rather than the software itself. For example, in his early days at MIT he quickly realized that companies were unwilling to share the source code with him so that he could improve the software. He would also be upset over software that had inherent flaws that he couldn't fix because the source was closed. Dealing with stubborn companies or selfish programmers willing to share their knowledge was and is frustrating for him. It's more the ideas and attitudes behind (the people and companies who create) closed source software that he is against.
I don't take his rhetoric literally. RMS even stated that DRM is OK if it is breakable (without Trusted Computing hardware hampering debugging/reverse engineering for example).
I propose that there may be more rhetoric to his madness than people assume.
I have an account with Technocrat.net (under a different nick). I rarely go their however because I spend most of my Internet time on Slashdot (old habits die hard). I think that is the way with a lot of people.
If it were a bit more lively it would be more enticing. People like me are ensured to get lots of feedback from Slashdot for example, either through replies or the moderation system, and even through the Friend and Foe functions.
The impression (a person like me gets) while at Technocrat.net is that nobody (or very few people are there). This may not of course be accurate because the readers vs. posters is not apparent to the casual observer. I think there is a (psychological) bandwagon appeal that more established and popular sites have that is hard to acquire. Reading and posting to two different sites also takes up more time. The one thing that a smaller site like yours has is that it brings with it more of a feeling of intimacy than the heard-of-lemmings like feeling I get with Slashdot.
I think making the site more interactive would help, like having an "I agree" or "I disagree" button for posted comments (I think you mentioned this as a possible feature before). This would be good for people who don't have anything to say but still want to feel like part of a community.
BTW, I've spent some time writing up a few articles here for Slashdot only to find out when I press the "Submit" button that they are duplicates (which isn't always obvious). So if you need some articles, then this would definitely be an incentive.
The problem here is that if we slashdotted him into the White House, we'd get a 503 government unreachable. As opposed to what? Perhaps the new Cmdr in Chief could introduce a Moderation system into government. A bit more of a populace system, but over all I'm not sure it could be worse than what it is now; having politicians more directly accountable to the voters rather than to the lobbyists.
The problem is not the availability of bandwidth, the problem is exclusive franchise agreements with towns which lock out competitors. My understanding is that before high-speed Internet de-regulation, these issues were not a problem. ISPs (nor anybody) could not lock out competitors.
Once these guys are elected, they don't have to listen to shit. The problem is the wrong people are being nominated as presidential candidates. Has anybody nominated CmdrTaco? I'm sure if we combined our powers we could slashdot him into the White House.
I can presume you are American. If so then you need to tell your politicians to re-introduce the law that forced the backbone providers to wholesale bandwidth to anybody who wants to get into the ISP business. Legislation can go a long ways to curbing monopolistic practices.
Getting disconnected from dialup is a fairly common problem (I used to do ISP tech support years ago). It's often just line quality. Though it could be the settings on your computer as well. I don't see dialup as a major bandwidth hog. Modems/per user may be an issue, but I think it is less likely these days that most(?) people would be using broadband connections.
'all major' ISPs engage in some form of traffic shaping. Perhaps it's time people stopped using major ISPs.
I have never used a major ISP, and to this day my bandwidth is not shaped (unless I exceed a soft limit of 100 GB of bandwidth per month); something that was introduce long after the major ISPs started to secretly introduced bandwidth shaping. Spam controls and firewalls, etc are most effective on the client side, not the server side. Yes there are arguments for the latter, but the downsides of letting an outside agency control your connection outweigh the upsides of users having control of what type of email they accept, or the trojens they so naively install. As with everything good comes bad; let people learn from their experiences and keep the Nanny out of my bandwidth.
And no please don't ask me what my ISP is; it's small and regional and not much use to most ppl here.
Most dictators have their own quasi-religious beliefs and practices, such as personality cults (seen in Stalinism and with the fucktard running North Korea), as well as with Hitler and Nazism. It could be said that the more religious a person is, the more mentally unstable they are. Most people who are criminally insane, for example, do not commit murder because they never received a message from god to do so.
Yes Atheists kill, but I would hypothesize that this psychotic tendency comes from that emotional and unpredictable part of the brain that also causes people to see images of the Virgin Mary in inanimate objects like rainbows or cookies.
Associating violence with any one religion, or religion as a whole is just silly. Indeed, and using one's religion as an excuse for violence is just as silly. Violence in the form of censorship, or violence in terms of rioting, killing, death threats, or out right murder. None of this should be tolerated.
"Unborn" is usually used in the poetic sense You hit it on the spot. I would argue that the more controversial the subject, then the more accurate and less vague and emotional the language should be.
On further reflection, I realized that a better comparison with the word "unborn" would be with the word "pre-dead" (that which exists between birth and death). "Unborn" is almost always used by people on the anti-abortion (or Pro-Life) side of an abortion debate (thus prejudicing any discussion from the beginning). A more neutral term would be "fetus" or "embryo".
I won't belabor the point; use what you will. It would simply mean that your comments have far less meaning to a much wider population.
Slashdot Mirror
Describing an action does not denote approval. Of course the way people interpret my words can be revealing.
when you said " I suspect
You are implying (or so it appears to me) that I have sex with children. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (that you were not trying to be a Troll). but you really should be more careful what you say. Yes you are right. And thanks for pointing that out.
My main argument is premised against fanaticism. And yes killing to me is fanatical. Sex is pleasure, there is no other way to describe it; and this (to me at least) cannot be compared with murder (on a moral basis). Taking somebody's life is worse than "pleasuring" somebody. I don't use the cliche's because they have obvious connotations of violence with them (like "rape"). If you have read articles on Slashdot and elsewhere there is usually more FUD associated with issues like this than reality. And people often have their own definitions of "rape", "exploitation", etc., to suite their own arguements.
And I often find the people who are most actively opposed on issues like this to be hypocrites (I'm not implying you are, but it is often the case). It's much like people who have called me gay in real life. I do not think of having sex with men; but obviously the people who have called me gay do think of this (men having sex, homosexuality, etc). This is offensive to me (not homosexuality, but people projecting their own beleifs onto me, or other people). One person once told me I look too good to be straight. Yes just like homophobes project their own sexuallity on people, I suspect there is a large amount of hypocrisy with people and their sexuality in other areas as well.
The sad thing is that people cannot have an intelligent debate about this without the opposing viewpoint being projected onto the person's actual behavior. Yeah I remember one time I wrote an essay about "drugs" for school when I was twelve years old and so my father thought I was a drug addict. Yeah people may think I am weird, but I generally tend to think the same of other people.
So yes, my morality takes priority over popularity; both in cyberspace and in real life. Let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately your disingenous and libelous flames and emotional appeals are more often the norm than not.
Of course, if I ever caught you having sex with MY child, I'd execute you like a dog. I would far rather have people like you put in jail pre-emptively. The fact that you still haven't been modded as Flamebait is scary. Your irrationality is far too common. When I was younger I used to stay up late at night, sneek out of the house, and slash tires of people like you (no kidding). It's the only form of justice that is possible in some cases.
One cannot have a rational dialogue if people demonize the subject matter.
Your biases and those of the moderators are obvious.
It is interesting that people who tend to find harm in pleasurable acts (sex, drugs, gambling, etc), don't impose your same morals on more harmful activities like abusing children through religious indoctrination or FORCING them to go to religious schools. As is always the case with the Morally Righteous; hypocrisy is almost always very evident.
And in another post: P.S. DOCS is the Dept of Community Services. Do your own research before spouting off in future. I actually thought you were somebody arguing against your claim, but then I looked at the Nick that was posting. You are fouling your own arguments. Yes DOCs is hardly an objective institution to get reliable information from, as it is there job to seek out "abuse". Without (sexual) "abuse" there would be no reason for their existence.
You also say: Do your own research before spouting off in future. Yes hypocrisy, or perhaps just a LACK OF TRUTHFULNESS is apparent in your own posts.
Ooops. My above post was supposed to be a reply to http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=449434&cid=22383472
It is a Troll because you are making outlandish claims without backing them up whatsoever. Unfortunately somebody decided to mark you as Insightful however. So there you go.
As with any piece of unobjective writing that tries to make itself appear based in science; it uses pejoritive terms like:
"abuse"
"molesters"
"victims"
"pornography consumers"
"Far from being a marginal loner"
"abused"
"children targeted"
(all of which have a negative conotation, but in and of themselves have no basis in a truely scientific or objective enquiry).
If one replaced the terms used for Pedophile with the term "Heterosexual male" and the word for child with the word "woman" then I can assure you that this language would not be used because the article would appear to be nothing more than feminist extremism, but in the think-of-the-children which-hunting paranoid world in which we live, this appears to be the new normal.
From the article, "As their stimulation threshold rises, they feel the need for stronger and stronger material This sounds EXACTLY like the anti-drug propoganda "science" that stated that marijuana was a slippery slope to heroine.
Let's leave the propaganda to the fanatics The internet provides paedophiles with opportunities to seek contacts with minors under false identities Again this is NOT surprising since pedophilia is illegal and considered socially inappropriate in most places throughout the world. This is just stating the obvious in many cases.
Again from the article: "He begins to see them as sex objects instead of children." Of course if a person is having sex with somebody then that other person can be considered as a "sex object", age is irrelevent, but the biases of the "expert" and the journalist is obvious. There is controversy over the extent to which paedophiles respond to therapy. There is an obvious biase that having sex with somebody under the age of 18 (the UN definition of a child) is a mental illness. If sexual attraction is in fact NOT unnatural then it would not be surprising that "paedophiles" cannot be "cured". It is however common for people to label deviant behaviour with the "mental illness" meme.
Like all poor slashdot posts, the journalist speeks often of "experts" without citations. The journalist does not even bother to define peadophilia but instead just uses a generic term that often denotes a very broad base of behaviours. Yep, just another piece of poor quality yellow journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion: The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. This is possible in the current theoretical understanding of physics as in Newton's First Law of Motion. The problem is that energy loss occurs through friction or resistance. So what one needs is a device that creates MORE energy than it creates.
I wonder how much RMS's stance is more rhetorical than real.
I think he is viewing (and projecting his views) of the attitudes of the types of people who deal in closed source software, rather than the software itself. For example, in his early days at MIT he quickly realized that companies were unwilling to share the source code with him so that he could improve the software. He would also be upset over software that had inherent flaws that he couldn't fix because the source was closed. Dealing with stubborn companies or selfish programmers willing to share their knowledge was and is frustrating for him. It's more the ideas and attitudes behind (the people and companies who create) closed source software that he is against.
I don't take his rhetoric literally. RMS even stated that DRM is OK if it is breakable (without Trusted Computing hardware hampering debugging/reverse engineering for example).
I propose that there may be more rhetoric to his madness than people assume.
I have an account with Technocrat.net (under a different nick). I rarely go their however because I spend most of my Internet time on Slashdot (old habits die hard). I think that is the way with a lot of people.
If it were a bit more lively it would be more enticing. People like me are ensured to get lots of feedback from Slashdot for example, either through replies or the moderation system, and even through the Friend and Foe functions.
The impression (a person like me gets) while at Technocrat.net is that nobody (or very few people are there). This may not of course be accurate because the readers vs. posters is not apparent to the casual observer. I think there is a (psychological) bandwagon appeal that more established and popular sites have that is hard to acquire. Reading and posting to two different sites also takes up more time. The one thing that a smaller site like yours has is that it brings with it more of a feeling of intimacy than the heard-of-lemmings like feeling I get with Slashdot.
I think making the site more interactive would help, like having an "I agree" or "I disagree" button for posted comments (I think you mentioned this as a possible feature before). This would be good for people who don't have anything to say but still want to feel like part of a community.
BTW, I've spent some time writing up a few articles here for Slashdot only to find out when I press the "Submit" button that they are duplicates (which isn't always obvious). So if you need some articles, then this would definitely be an incentive.
Regards
Perhaps the new Cmdr in Chief could introduce a Moderation system into government. A bit more of a populace system, but over all I'm not sure it could be worse than what it is now; having politicians more directly accountable to the voters rather than to the lobbyists.
I can presume you are American. If so then you need to tell your politicians to re-introduce the law that forced the backbone providers to wholesale bandwidth to anybody who wants to get into the ISP business. Legislation can go a long ways to curbing monopolistic practices.
;)
And btw, you forgot to post anonymously
Getting disconnected from dialup is a fairly common problem (I used to do ISP tech support years ago). It's often just line quality. Though it could be the settings on your computer as well. I don't see dialup as a major bandwidth hog. Modems/per user may be an issue, but I think it is less likely these days that most(?) people would be using broadband connections.
I have never used a major ISP, and to this day my bandwidth is not shaped (unless I exceed a soft limit of 100 GB of bandwidth per month); something that was introduce long after the major ISPs started to secretly introduced bandwidth shaping. Spam controls and firewalls, etc are most effective on the client side, not the server side. Yes there are arguments for the latter, but the downsides of letting an outside agency control your connection outweigh the upsides of users having control of what type of email they accept, or the trojens they so naively install. As with everything good comes bad; let people learn from their experiences and keep the Nanny out of my bandwidth.
And no please don't ask me what my ISP is; it's small and regional and not much use to most ppl here.
Most dictators have their own quasi-religious beliefs and practices, such as personality cults (seen in Stalinism and with the fucktard running North Korea), as well as with Hitler and Nazism. It could be said that the more religious a person is, the more mentally unstable they are. Most people who are criminally insane, for example, do not commit murder because they never received a message from god to do so.
Yes Atheists kill, but I would hypothesize that this psychotic tendency comes from that emotional and unpredictable part of the brain that also causes people to see images of the Virgin Mary in inanimate objects like rainbows or cookies.
On further reflection, I realized that a better comparison with the word "unborn" would be with the word "pre-dead" (that which exists between birth and death). "Unborn" is almost always used by people on the anti-abortion (or Pro-Life) side of an abortion debate (thus prejudicing any discussion from the beginning). A more neutral term would be "fetus" or "embryo".
I won't belabor the point; use what you will. It would simply mean that your comments have far less meaning to a much wider population.
The word "unborn" has about as much relevance to reality as the word "undead".
They are not words one uses to have an intelligent discussion with.