I'd say freedom of speech is far more important than safety. Of course, some people seem to want to give it up because they can't handle a few casualties caused by other people's actions. Is does not matter to me what their intentions were; I can plainly see who caused the damage.
you carry a some measure of responsiblity for that rampage.
My words didn't force them to do anything. Why are 'maniacs' who are so sensitive that they'll kill someone because someone said something that they disapprove of running around, anyway? That sounds dangerous.
Hopefully we won't punish someone for the actions of others.
Rape of a child does not have to involve neither force nor coercion.
That's not really the point.
Yes, in 99% of the cases they will probably be able to resist
I have no idea how many are able to resist because, as far as I know, there is no evidence one way or the other. I think it's more likely that there are rapists who also happen to be pedophiles and normal rapists who just happen to rape a child.
then the number of times they'd have an opportunity for a 'moment of weakness' would fall to near zero.
It already is extremely low given the size of the population. Again, they're free to reveal whatever they want about themselves, but they should be prepared for a large amount of backlash at first.
The same actions from that mean a relationship between adults mean rape when a child is involved.
What are you even talking about? Again, I've seen no evidence that someone (pedophiles included) will suddenly turn into rapists if they can't get any sex. I'll continue to think it a baseless theory until and unless someone shows some evidence. I've seen no evidence that they'll do something that amounts to rape in normal cases, and I've seen no evidence that the average pedophile will try to fool children into having sex with them.
What if pedophiles started coming out of the closet, and the public saw that they were regular, law abiding people.
They'd have to be pretty brave. I don't have anything against it, but they probably should be prepared for a massive backlash at first.
It certainly can be! It depends on the individual's values. I happen to take freedom quite seriously.
If we had a compromise that let me keep my water bottle and and my shoes and cut way back on all the intrusive searches, I'm supposed to say "No! It's all or nothing! Let me keep my pocket knife or no deal!"
You can do both. First weaken them, and then completely destroy them. I fear that people might get complacent, but it's possible.
Get real.
I'd say the same to anyone who would suggest not completely abolishing the TSA in favor of some compromise that would permanently keep them around.
but belittlement is not an argument
I never claimed that it was. If I listen to someone's argument and remain unconvinced, I tell them so and usually tell them why. If it seems particularly idiotic to me, I may start to think they're idiots.
As for the difference from 'normal' lust, the problem is that there is no way for them to satisfy their lust except (at least statutory) rape.
But I'm saying that it doesn't matter; I've seen no evidence that demonstrates that individuals who can't find someone to have sexual intercourse with will turn into rapists.
And on the topic of discrimination : why not use the same kind of laws that shield homosexuals? If pedophilia could be recognized as just another sexual orientation, then why not amend existing laws that are already in place?
I think that's a good idea, but it's going to be difficult to change people's minds. But even if there were laws against it, employers could make up other excuses to not hire/fire someone. Announcing that you're a pedophile simply doesn't sound like a good idea.
but if your political rhetoric consists of "you're an idiot"
Where exactly did you get that that's the case? The fact that I think they're idiots doesn't mean I'll take every opportunity to make that fact known or use it when arguing with them.
That's not happening right now because everybody's in My Way or the Highway mode.
Sometimes I don't think compromise is acceptable. I will not compromise on murder, slavery, the TSA, etc.
It all depends on how important the issue is to you.
I hope you were just referring to the fact that, in a democracy, the majority is more likely to get their way.
but because you think they're stupid, their opinion doesn't matter.
Right. That's generally how it goes. I would say that someone who believes that 1 + 1 = 3 is stupid and that their opinion doesn't matter. Of course, this situation is merely a matter of preference, so it's not as objective as that, but in my opinion, they're still imbeciles. I can still try to convince them to accept my point of view, though.
Good way to sabotage a democratic process based on free speech and open debate.
Sorry, but you lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. How does personally believing that someone is stupid sabotage the democratic process? You'll have to explain that one to me.
Congratulations: you've become the thing you hate!
It doesn't matter if they're non-offending; you can't just take the law into your own hands.
Re-reading that, you may have just meant that in cases where they're non-offending, it should be treated as a hate crime, and not that nothing should happen if they molest someone and then get murdered.
It's not so much a question of ability, but of inclination.
I'd say they're no more inclined to rape anyone than anyone else that has sexual lust. Most people simply aren't rapists, and I highly doubt someone would become one simply because they can't have sexual intercourse with someone.
If a (non-offending) pedophile is attacked/killed, treat it as a hate crime.
It doesn't matter if they're non-offending; you can't just take the law into your own hands.
And it's too late in that case, anyway. Not to mention that you don't even have to get killed or beaten for it to end badly; you've effectively ensured that you won't be able to find a job or go out in public without being bombarded with hateful comments. Unless that's what you want, advertising the fact that you're a pedophile is probably a terrible idea.
Actually, I meant to reply to the parent of your comment but somehow ended up replying to yours, instead. That said...
I said that the pedophiles themselves should inform people.
I don't think that's a good idea. Their lives may even be in danger if they do that.
Technically, anyone has the ability to rape someone else. Don't go around telling people that you're a potential rapist, though. Just because they happen to be attracted to children doesn't mean that it's different.
It seems clear from observation of other, closely related species (like mammals in general), that it is not a natural state of affairs when adults have sex with immature young.
Humans are animals and a part of nature, you know.
And what if it was "natural"? Does that even matter?
We're talking a few percent that want to ruin it for the rest of us.
What, you mean the government? Yeah, they typically try to do that. They'll imagine nonexistent/petty threats and say that we must resort to censorship or take away people's freedoms to stop it. This specific case just seems to be them saying, "Someone might hurt other people's feelings on the Internet! I deem their speech useless, so it must be stopped!"
Trolls are the ones trying to get a rise out of people for the sake of causing trouble.
So what if you're offended? What's going to happen? Whatever you let happen. It's not that big of a deal, in my opinion.
I don't think people should go around asking for new draconian laws every time something offends them.
This is not a mob of ignorant Springfielders demanding that we set up a Bear Patrol.
Are you positive? Look at his solution and realize that, in matters like this, anyone who disagrees is typically labelled as a supporter of abuse themselves or at the very least, ostracized without anyone actually paying attention to their arguments.
This is an attempt to do something about child abuse, That is, as you may have heard, a real problem.
It's a real problem just like terrorism is a real problem. I don't believe that justifies, even for an instant, the circumvention of people's freedoms.
But a lot of people believe it's true. And it's not because they're stupid or hysterical.
Are you sure about that? They seem to spew forth illogical arguments and ad hominem attacks whenever this subject comes up rather than actually looking at any opposing arguments. I'd say that's the hallmark of a stupid person, but that's just my opinion.
They simply interpret the evidence differently from you and me.
The nonexistent evidence? Oh, right.
We desperately need to squash the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who needs to be shouted down.
I personally believe that anyone who acts in such a foolish, illogical matter is an idiot and needs to be shouted down. Much like TSA supporters.
I'd rather we stop labeling everyone who disagrees with the mob as a child molester.
I knew someone would bring that up. Yes, I feel the voters are moronic in many ways, but even if he's pandering for votes, I also feel the politician himself is moronic for even considering this as a solution. I'm going to have to blame everyone in this case, so I'd agree it's not just the politician at fault.
These all sound like great ideas. We need to create a police state where people are preemptively punished for crimes they might commit in the future! That's a thoughtcrime, sir.
So not only does it want to ban the material entirely because of a few 'bad guys', he also doesn't even know if what he's saying is actually true. Can we ban all books and other media depicting any violence or sexual content whatsoever because they could (but likely wouldn't actually be the cause of it) lead a minuscule portion of the population to commit crimes, too? Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians? They are, without a doubt, ruining just about everything, for everyone.
Huh? I think you're misunderstanding me. The guy above said "Estimated by a bunch of self-justifying paedophiles, maybe." in reply to "The incidence of pedophilia is estimated to be around 1%"
I just don't see how saying the incidence of pedophilia is estimated around 1% could possibly justify anything. I just don't see a pedophile saying that with the intent of 'justifying' something, and I don't think it makes much sense to begin with.
It says that pedophilia is just as normal as homosexuality.
Well, I don't think something being somewhat common makes it okay. Even if 50% of the population were rapists, I would still believe that rape is wrong, so I don't really see how they could use that to justify anything.
what the fuck does that have to do with a police state anyway?
You'd have to beg the government (or whatever that person's plan is for it) before you can "earn" your rights. In other words, the solution seems to be to force everyone to "earn" their rights rather than them having them by default.
Then in another comment (not sure if it was by the same person), this was said:
But other rights like right to "hang," loiter, drive a car, stay outside after curfew, go to the shopping mall etc could be conditioned on good behavior, underwriters and such.
Aside from driver's licenses, it sounds like this person is advocating for a police state because there are a few 'bad apples' running around. Maybe I'm just gravely misunderstanding something...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say freedom of speech is far more important than safety. Of course, some people seem to want to give it up because they can't handle a few casualties caused by other people's actions. Is does not matter to me what their intentions were; I can plainly see who caused the damage.
you carry a some measure of responsiblity for that rampage.
My words didn't force them to do anything. Why are 'maniacs' who are so sensitive that they'll kill someone because someone said something that they disapprove of running around, anyway? That sounds dangerous.
Hopefully we won't punish someone for the actions of others.
The ticket goes to the registered driver, and they will be liable unless they can prove they definitely weren't driving.
I actually disagree with that, too.
No big deal.
It doesn't matter to me if the punishment is big or small. I expect them to have evidence.
Rape of a child does not have to involve neither force nor coercion.
That's not really the point.
Yes, in 99% of the cases they will probably be able to resist
I have no idea how many are able to resist because, as far as I know, there is no evidence one way or the other. I think it's more likely that there are rapists who also happen to be pedophiles and normal rapists who just happen to rape a child.
then the number of times they'd have an opportunity for a 'moment of weakness' would fall to near zero.
It already is extremely low given the size of the population. Again, they're free to reveal whatever they want about themselves, but they should be prepared for a large amount of backlash at first.
I was just objecting to the "it's just too difficult" line of reasoning.
because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit).
Yeah, due process is pretty hard. Why don't we just get rid of all of it? Just throw people in prison based on mere accusations.
The same actions from that mean a relationship between adults mean rape when a child is involved.
What are you even talking about? Again, I've seen no evidence that someone (pedophiles included) will suddenly turn into rapists if they can't get any sex. I'll continue to think it a baseless theory until and unless someone shows some evidence. I've seen no evidence that they'll do something that amounts to rape in normal cases, and I've seen no evidence that the average pedophile will try to fool children into having sex with them.
What if pedophiles started coming out of the closet, and the public saw that they were regular, law abiding people.
They'd have to be pretty brave. I don't have anything against it, but they probably should be prepared for a massive backlash at first.
But security theater?
It certainly can be! It depends on the individual's values. I happen to take freedom quite seriously.
If we had a compromise that let me keep my water bottle and and my shoes and cut way back on all the intrusive searches, I'm supposed to say "No! It's all or nothing! Let me keep my pocket knife or no deal!"
You can do both. First weaken them, and then completely destroy them. I fear that people might get complacent, but it's possible.
Get real.
I'd say the same to anyone who would suggest not completely abolishing the TSA in favor of some compromise that would permanently keep them around.
but belittlement is not an argument
I never claimed that it was. If I listen to someone's argument and remain unconvinced, I tell them so and usually tell them why. If it seems particularly idiotic to me, I may start to think they're idiots.
As for the difference from 'normal' lust, the problem is that there is no way for them to satisfy their lust except (at least statutory) rape.
But I'm saying that it doesn't matter; I've seen no evidence that demonstrates that individuals who can't find someone to have sexual intercourse with will turn into rapists.
And on the topic of discrimination : why not use the same kind of laws that shield homosexuals? If pedophilia could be recognized as just another sexual orientation, then why not amend existing laws that are already in place?
I think that's a good idea, but it's going to be difficult to change people's minds. But even if there were laws against it, employers could make up other excuses to not hire/fire someone. Announcing that you're a pedophile simply doesn't sound like a good idea.
but if your political rhetoric consists of "you're an idiot"
Where exactly did you get that that's the case? The fact that I think they're idiots doesn't mean I'll take every opportunity to make that fact known or use it when arguing with them.
That's not happening right now because everybody's in My Way or the Highway mode.
Sometimes I don't think compromise is acceptable. I will not compromise on murder, slavery, the TSA, etc.
It all depends on how important the issue is to you.
Millions of people believe something is true
I hope you were just referring to the fact that, in a democracy, the majority is more likely to get their way.
but because you think they're stupid, their opinion doesn't matter.
Right. That's generally how it goes. I would say that someone who believes that 1 + 1 = 3 is stupid and that their opinion doesn't matter. Of course, this situation is merely a matter of preference, so it's not as objective as that, but in my opinion, they're still imbeciles. I can still try to convince them to accept my point of view, though.
Good way to sabotage a democratic process based on free speech and open debate.
Sorry, but you lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. How does personally believing that someone is stupid sabotage the democratic process? You'll have to explain that one to me.
Congratulations: you've become the thing you hate!
I don't actually hate anything.
It doesn't matter if they're non-offending; you can't just take the law into your own hands.
Re-reading that, you may have just meant that in cases where they're non-offending, it should be treated as a hate crime, and not that nothing should happen if they molest someone and then get murdered.
It's not so much a question of ability, but of inclination.
I'd say they're no more inclined to rape anyone than anyone else that has sexual lust. Most people simply aren't rapists, and I highly doubt someone would become one simply because they can't have sexual intercourse with someone.
If a (non-offending) pedophile is attacked/killed, treat it as a hate crime.
It doesn't matter if they're non-offending; you can't just take the law into your own hands.
And it's too late in that case, anyway. Not to mention that you don't even have to get killed or beaten for it to end badly; you've effectively ensured that you won't be able to find a job or go out in public without being bombarded with hateful comments. Unless that's what you want, advertising the fact that you're a pedophile is probably a terrible idea.
Actually, I meant to reply to the parent of your comment but somehow ended up replying to yours, instead. That said...
I said that the pedophiles themselves should inform people.
I don't think that's a good idea. Their lives may even be in danger if they do that.
Technically, anyone has the ability to rape someone else. Don't go around telling people that you're a potential rapist, though. Just because they happen to be attracted to children doesn't mean that it's different.
but if more people disagree with you then they are right
1 + 1 = 3 because most people agree that that's true.
Democracy doesn't mean people are objectively correct just because they're in the majority.
It seems clear from observation of other, closely related species (like mammals in general), that it is not a natural state of affairs when adults have sex with immature young.
Humans are animals and a part of nature, you know.
And what if it was "natural"? Does that even matter?
We're talking a few percent that want to ruin it for the rest of us.
What, you mean the government? Yeah, they typically try to do that. They'll imagine nonexistent/petty threats and say that we must resort to censorship or take away people's freedoms to stop it. This specific case just seems to be them saying, "Someone might hurt other people's feelings on the Internet! I deem their speech useless, so it must be stopped!"
Trolls are the ones trying to get a rise out of people for the sake of causing trouble.
So what if you're offended? What's going to happen? Whatever you let happen. It's not that big of a deal, in my opinion.
I don't think people should go around asking for new draconian laws every time something offends them.
This is not a mob of ignorant Springfielders demanding that we set up a Bear Patrol.
Are you positive? Look at his solution and realize that, in matters like this, anyone who disagrees is typically labelled as a supporter of abuse themselves or at the very least, ostracized without anyone actually paying attention to their arguments.
This is an attempt to do something about child abuse, That is, as you may have heard, a real problem.
It's a real problem just like terrorism is a real problem. I don't believe that justifies, even for an instant, the circumvention of people's freedoms.
But a lot of people believe it's true. And it's not because they're stupid or hysterical.
Are you sure about that? They seem to spew forth illogical arguments and ad hominem attacks whenever this subject comes up rather than actually looking at any opposing arguments. I'd say that's the hallmark of a stupid person, but that's just my opinion.
They simply interpret the evidence differently from you and me.
The nonexistent evidence? Oh, right.
We desperately need to squash the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who needs to be shouted down.
I personally believe that anyone who acts in such a foolish, illogical matter is an idiot and needs to be shouted down. Much like TSA supporters.
I'd rather we stop labeling everyone who disagrees with the mob as a child molester.
I knew someone would bring that up. Yes, I feel the voters are moronic in many ways, but even if he's pandering for votes, I also feel the politician himself is moronic for even considering this as a solution. I'm going to have to blame everyone in this case, so I'd agree it's not just the politician at fault.
These all sound like great ideas. We need to create a police state where people are preemptively punished for crimes they might commit in the future! That's a thoughtcrime, sir.
It's for the children, so anything is okay.
"could lead to the physical abuse of children."
So not only does it want to ban the material entirely because of a few 'bad guys', he also doesn't even know if what he's saying is actually true. Can we ban all books and other media depicting any violence or sexual content whatsoever because they could (but likely wouldn't actually be the cause of it) lead a minuscule portion of the population to commit crimes, too? Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians? They are, without a doubt, ruining just about everything, for everyone.
So you want to punish people for a thought crime?
Huh? I think you're misunderstanding me. The guy above said "Estimated by a bunch of self-justifying paedophiles, maybe." in reply to "The incidence of pedophilia is estimated to be around 1%"
I just don't see how saying the incidence of pedophilia is estimated around 1% could possibly justify anything. I just don't see a pedophile saying that with the intent of 'justifying' something, and I don't think it makes much sense to begin with.
It says that pedophilia is just as normal as homosexuality.
Well, I don't think something being somewhat common makes it okay. Even if 50% of the population were rapists, I would still believe that rape is wrong, so I don't really see how they could use that to justify anything.
Estimated by a bunch of self-justifying paedophiles, maybe.
Wait... how would claiming the incidence of pedophilia is around 1% justify anything?
what the fuck does that have to do with a police state anyway?
You'd have to beg the government (or whatever that person's plan is for it) before you can "earn" your rights. In other words, the solution seems to be to force everyone to "earn" their rights rather than them having them by default.
Then in another comment (not sure if it was by the same person), this was said:
But other rights like right to "hang," loiter, drive a car, stay outside after curfew, go to the shopping mall etc could be conditioned on good behavior, underwriters and such.
Aside from driver's licenses, it sounds like this person is advocating for a police state because there are a few 'bad apples' running around. Maybe I'm just gravely misunderstanding something...