"The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that."
It's certainly good for the copyright holder when you've obtained that data through unauthorized distribution. Since they can't keep you from obtaining the data they must resort to making that data useless to you. DRM is not used to prevent you full use of your data, it's used to prevent you use of their copyrighted content.
I don't know how I missed your original post. It's not in this thread so I never saw it. These sites certainly appear to be pedophile support sites. In the few minutes I looked I didn't see anything offensive or negative.
"The boychat website is a very/positive/ site for so called pedophiles that would otherwise have no where to output their feelings. If boychat didn't exist, the members would be bottling up their feelings until they did molest a child."
I could see how that might be so. I don't feel that molestation is ever inevitable but I certainly appreciate the problem!
"I don't know about you but I really find this very creepy and dangerous. It seems to be a great path to temptation and justification to me."
I would think simply inappropriate but creepy. Perhaps it could lure a boylover that lurks at gay sites
"So with that being said am I off your hook for being homophobic since I didn't know the original site was a site for Gay men?"
Considering that I agree with everything you've said plus I've seen the obvious pedophile support pages, I'd have to say yes:-) Hopefully, as a gay man, I'm off your list of homophobics as well;-)
"No, but dishing out justice (or injustice) or whatever IS required. You certainly do not know what a vigilante is."
Krell, you really are pathetic. You took exception to the use of "vigilante" because you claimed "they certainly aren't arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them." Those were your exact words. Thank you, however, for now proving yourself wrong.
This "US vigilante group" took it upon themselves to inflict harm upon the owners of websites by petitioning a service provider to deny them access to the internet. They took that action on their own and have been properly labelled vigilantes.
"Link to the post where I said the faked quote. Can you?"
Oh come on, krell, I quoted it. You are such a stooge.
Here is the entire contents of your ridiculous post:
"PJ group "vigilantes"?
They certainly aren't arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them. The article says they "destroy lives", when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives. -- Where were you when the voynix came?"
So yes, krell, you can be a vigilante with arresting, hanging or imprisoning people. No, the article said nothing about anyone "destroying lives" nor did it describe the "stinging" of anyone. I think it's clear that your post is a bunch of meaningless, judgemental bullshit.
"There's no connection between speech and vigilantism."
I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink. There is no connection between speech and vigilantism, but there is a connection between the deterrent of illegal speech and the deterrent of vigilantism. That is what the laws are for!
If I had a free shot at someone that I hated and I knew that a lie couldn't get back to me (and I were a sleazeball) I'd be tempted to take it. Of course, that isn't vigilantism, but if the person were a hated group, say "sexual perverts", and I were a group of rednecks then suddenly it is vigilantism.
I have no idea how you got that idea from anything I posted assuming this isn't a troll.
There is nothing OK about committing sex acts with children regardless of gender. There is nothing wrong with having sexual attractions because those you cannot choose. The attractions in pedophilia are not crimes; the bahavior is.
It's important to understand what exactly constitutes a "child" in this case as well. Pedophilia does not involve 17 year olds unless they look and act like 10 year olds. That is the sexual truth of the matter regardless of the complex and varying legal definitions.
Finally, nothing presented in the article described pedophilia AT ALL. For all we know, pedophilia (through "minor attracted adults) was dropped just to create a knew-jerk reaction against an adult homosexual site.
"Have you looked at the sites in question yourself?"
I have not because the article was/.'ed. Several other posters claimed they were simply gay male adult sites.
I would like to see these sites and would appreciate links to them so I can see them myself.
"The one I looked at was full of profanity and had no passwords or age warnings on it."
Does Canada have restrictions on that?
"The site I could get to was called Boychat. It is a site for people that are attracted to boys! Not adult men but BOYS!"
Gay men who are young and/or look young are called boys. Again, I haven't seen the sight but "boys" is a term commonly used and it does not carry the connotation of pedophilia.
"They talk about channeling their sexual interest into "positive" channels like mentoring. Guess what that is a REALLY BAD IDEA. Pedophiles are like alcoholics. They need to avoid their addiction at ALL TIMES."
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not an addiction. You cannot possibly make an argument for your position.
"For all I knew when I posted my comments those sites could have been for men that like little girls. I had no idea that it was hosted on a Gay oriented website."
That's true, but religious zealots love to associate pedophilia with homosexuality when no such link exists. The fact that others here claim that the sites are simply gay men sites leads me to believe that's what's going on.
"I think that a Gay lifestyle website posting in any positive way about a pedophile website is one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever seen!"
Absolutely. Homosexuals are not associated with pedophiles and have enough image problems on their own.
"Legal or not those sites are sites for pedophiles. People that have sexual desires for children. If I didn't know better I would have guessed that it was a fake site run by the extreme right to feed any homosexual hysteria."
Maybe. I'd love to see them for myself. I'd also like to see documentation that the sites are the ones that were requested to be removed.
"No, I simply don't want children to be molested."
Few would disagree with you. Talk about a one-two punch!:-)
"Like you can separate the two, and treat one as a heinous crime while being accepting of the other."
You can. It is not a crime to feel however you do but acceptance doesn't mean trust them blindly with your kids!
"If you accept the validity of the identity as morally neutral, then the normalization of the expression of the identity is the next step."
I do accept the sexuality as "morally neutral". I do not accept that child molestation as normal. It absolutely does not follow.
You are suggesting that those attracted to children cannot prevent themselves from committing child abuse and that isn't so. A man that is sexually attracted to a child does not inherently want to rape that child any more than a straight man wants to rape a woman. I would imagine that it might be easy for a pedophile to fool himself into believing things that aren't so. That's true for all of us.
"The religious right's "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to homosexuality should show how successful that approach is. Ask Ted Haggard how successful it's been."
No come on. The religious right is a hate organization cloaked in fake biblical righteousness and there's absolutely nothing about their approach to homosexuals that can be considered "love the sinner". Besides, how has it failed?
Since you brought it up, Ted Haggard is a prime, and very current, example of what happens when you force someone into the closet under the greatest possible oppression. Your approach of giving absolutely no consideration toward someone because of his sexuality would likely contribute to his behavior rather than discourage it. I can't prove that, of course, but a pedophile that's invisible cannot be helped or dealt with in any way.
"I do have a degree of sympathy for pedophiles, because I agree that their condition is outside their choice. That doesn't mean they aren't public hazards, in the same way that a plague carrier is. In light of that, they can be dealt with humanely or not (and it should go without saying that humanely is my choice), but dealt with they must be."
And this is where we agree. I don't think there's any reason to believe that a pedophile inherently desires to harm any more than anyone else does. Who really knows how many there are because you don't hear about the ones who keep to themselves and never harm a child. It may be the case that many deal with it themselves.
I agree with you. Sex crimes are the only crimes punishable with open-ended sentences and are the only ones where sentences can be extended after the fact. I think that's disgusting. If you do the crime you do the time unless sex is involved---then you pay the price for the rest of your life. I can't see how the legal system gets away with it.
Regarding the corporate firewall, your company is entitled to limit what it's resources are used for so it doesn't need justification for filtering any subject when it gets down to it. My last employer wouldn't block such a query. Instead, it would log it in hopes of finding a firable offense to use against you. I kid you not.
"Actually, it has to do with taking the law into your own hands."
That's right, it means taking it on yourself to dish out justice to others. "Arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them" isn't required even though you seem to think it is.
"Nice going! Since I said nothing at all to remotely support this, you make up a quote where I did."
Sure you did. You judged people without even knowing who the hell the article even talked about. I'll remind you:
"The article says they "destroy lives", when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives."
Sound familiar? There wasn't even any mention of a single person who'd even broken a law in the article. You not only don't know what a vigilante is, you make a bad one.
My point is that you jumped to judgement without seeing any actual content. You have no idea why the term was used but you were more than happy to assume that it meant "pedophiles". The ambiguity worked but not in the manner you thought. The purpose was to dupe YOU.
Being gay myself, I don't think it's likely that I'll be the one promoting homophobia.
"Nothing will make the extreme right happier than equateing Homosexuality and "minor-attraction"."
And that's exactly what happened. They sold you on the idea that a gay site was a pedophilia site by using that term.
Idk about Canada but you are wrong about the US. In the US such concerns are a state matter and the laws vary. Some states still attempt to outlaw homosexuality entirely but few states define the age of consent at 18. 16 and 17 are the typical ages.
Curiously, Texas, and perhaps others, define the age of consent below 18 (17 in TX) but have laws prohibiting certain behavior with minors (below 18). As a result, the legal age remains 18.
Pedophilia as a legal concept is not necessarily the same as the sexual orientation itself.
"What the hell is a "minor attracted adult", if not a pedophile?"
Attraction to those under the age of the majority. That includes more than prepubescent children.
"it bothers me to see the mainstreaming of pedophilia with terms like this."
Has it occurred to you that it may be a tactic to bash those who can't be shown, or even suspected, of pedophilia at all?
"They talked about 'coming out', and about accepting themselves, and reclaiming terms like 'boy lover'. They were mentally and emotionally setting the stage for the same sort of battle for public acceptance that the gay community has fought and mostly won over the last few decades."
What is the problem with this? So far you've described no criminal behavior at all. Are you advocating keeping people with this condition be as emotionally deprived as possible? How is that a help to society?
"I don't want them to 'come out', I don't want them to have supportive underground communities, and it was saddening to see the entirely appropriate discourse of public acceptance of homosexuality and queer identity perverted like this."
It isn't perverted. Being closeted for them is no different. Plenty have said the same things about gays.
"This is exactly the slippery slope that the right uses to justify non-acceptance of gays, and we need to bring a big heavy boot down on crap like 'minor attracted adult' to demonstrate that we can make moral choices about who we will accept and who we won't."
My moral choice is to accept what everyone's condition is. There is a big difference between accepting a person's condition and accepting their actions. It is child molestation that is the issue and nothing you've described has anything to do with that. You just seemed consumed by hatred and fear of those you don't know.
"The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance. It starts by calling bullshit on terms like 'minor attracted adult'."
I don't agree with any of that. First, homosexuality hasn't been mainstreamed outside progressive areas. Second, pedophilia is a condition that people develop outside their choice, and it's child molestation that has to be prevented. Finally, you have no idea why the term "minor attracted adult" was chosen and you have no basis for declaring that it means "pedophile" (or more accurately "child molester in your usage).
Criminal in the minds of the vigilantes. Apparently the sites are nothing more than gay men's sites. Sounds like nothing more than good old gay bashing, redneck vigilantes to me.
I would add that the pages Mark Foley pursued were 17 years old and he has incorrectly been labeled a pedophile.
You are exactly right of course. "Minor-attracted adults" aren't uncommon at all since "minor" is an arbitrary age that is typically older than the age of sexual maturity.
Ah, krell, you're never gonna learn what a vigilante is, are you? If it doesn't involve beating with a baseball bat it isn't vigilantism, right krell?
"...when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives."
How so? By seeking support at legal sites? Is getting Verizon to censor legal content an example of that "sting"? Nice leaping to conclusions, krell. Good thing you aren't in "law enforcement". Just a member of the mob.
"We're gonna have a first class trial followed by a first class hangin'." - krell
No, he didn't. He continued to produce but we'll never know what he might have accomplished had it not occurred. There's no doubt, though, that his life was ruined.
That's disturbing, but Hawaii does have a large amount of Japanese investment and Japanese tourist traffic. Shark fin soup isn't an American or Hawaiian dish.
"There's quite often a difference between whether or not someone did something and whether or not they have been charge or convicted."
My disclaimer was appropriate considered I didn't have any personal knowledge of the matter.
"I checked the definition of "pedophile". It involved love for "children".
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent/peripubescent children. It does not include young adults after puberty but younger than the age of the majority (which high school seniors would be with rare exception). Maybe you'd like to check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
"In some definitions, but not most, high-school agers count into the group that is "children.""...but not for the purposes of pedophilia. It is popular to claim so because it serves to demonize people like Mark Foley. Foley is not a pedophile from what we've seen so far and the pages he pursued were of the age of consent. Now, if all that Foley did was talk dirty to these pages and the law recognizes that the pages were mature enough to consent, how can anyone justify claiming that Foley committed a sex crime against a child? The federal government will, of course, since they've overridden the age of consent for internet communications (what bullshit is that?) but the only thing Foley was guilty of is abuse of his power and of violations of behavior in the House. His actual offenses aren't much different than Clinton's (except for Clinton's purgery of course).
"I thought you said there was no connection between free speech and vigilantism (which there isn't)."
Yes, that's true.
"Now you assert one (and there still isn't). "
I did not. I said that removing the deterrent to slander would encourage vigilantism. Slander is not free speech.
"The civil system (lawsuits over defamation) should take care of this."
Not if the process provides anonymity to those who do the damage. If there is accountability then the system has a chance to work, but the whole concept of "crowdsourcing" works against that. If every source of information is documented and verified then there'd be no difference between crowdsourcing and what's always been done. The difference between the two is volume and accountability. You can't sue for slander when you can't figure out which neighbor is spreading the lies.
Don't pull that racist bullshit on me. It was YOU that used the term "East Asian nation" and that means more than Japan. I damn well know the difference.
A screaming monkey is worse than a factory killed pig because it's the screaming in agony that's part of the sadistic pleasure participants get out of the barbaric experience. Everyone gets that except assholes like you.
The Japanese and Chinese are both guilty of especially heinous abuse of wildlife. You won't find shark fin soup sold in the US (though you will in Japan) nor would Anericans slaughter a rhino for a few pounds of powdered horn hair. Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan are the largest markets for the illegal ivory trade. There's a big difference between your "East Asian nations" scumbags and the rest of the world.
"I did not misquote you (no words in your mouth, keyboard, or whatever)."
You didn't quote me at all. You attributed first amendment rights as "privilege" to me. I quoted it already; no need to do so again.
"Which means realization of freedom of the press because someone is not held "accountable" to the opinions of the censor for disagreeing with the censor. "
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I understand what freedom of the press is.
"Your second sentence contradicts the first. If someone takes the law into their own hands, they are doing their own "law enforcement." That is how vigilantism relates to the subject of law enforcement. "
It does not. Your problem is that you interpret "law enforcement" differently that I've used it. "Law enforcement", in my usage, is a function of government and describes organizations that exist to accomplish it. Vigilantism bypasses that. Vigilantes in no way perform "law enforcement" (your usage); vigilantes implement "frontier justice".
"Supposedly....? "
Yes, because he has not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing. It certainly appears, through IM sessions I've read online, that he participated in "dirty talk" with someone of the age of consent. I don't defend him---I'm as appalled as anyone. My comment was that his offense was his abuse of power, not pedophilis as is popularly believed. Mark Foley is slime but he is not a child molester (as far as we've seen to date).
"The public, in the humble opinion of a higher legal authority, already is trusted in such matters."
No, it has not.
The first amendment does not grant anyone the right to state, as fact, that Mark Foley is a pedophile. Doing so would be libel/slander (assuming there is no additional evidence than we've publicly seen). That goes right to the root of the issue and it seems to be what you consistently overlook. Your right to free speech ends when damage to another person begins. At that point you had better have facts to back up your statements or you are violating the rights of another person. Encouraging such disregard for the rights of others through immunity to consequences would encourage vigilantism IMO (and the opinion of another poster). We see a lot of that already with the popularity of blogging and editorializing that is presented as legitimate journalism i.e. the "presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.".
"There is always subjectivity. The problem with the "professionals" is that too often, they are very subjective. But they operate under a cloak of assumed subjectivity."
We certainly agree there although I think you mean "assumed objectivity". Law enforcement is notoriously subjective depending on the nature of the crime and those who commit them. I do not defend policemen, prosecutors, or judges for their objectivity at all yet I don't believe throwing the public into the mix will improve matters. Regarding journalists, it seems that profession has largely gone to hell.
I think there are cultural differences and I do think asian cultures are worse. The examples you give are either juvenile behavior or not examples of sadistic cruelty. I'm not arguing that it's not human nature because it certainly is, but I do believe there's a big difference between boys sticking a firecracker up a cat's butt and grown men cracking open a monkey skull over a business dinner.
To take a particularly offensive example, sharks are being finned to extinction in many parts of the world and many species are under serious threat. The sole purpose of the activity is for chinese shark fin soup. The sharks most in demand are the largest, slowest reproducing sharks i.e. the ones MOST threatened by such an activity. In other words, customers are willing to pay the most for the fins that do the most damage to the population (and I believe that's intentional). I can't imagine what could be more offensive.
For other offensive examples, the extinction of rhinos in the wild is a foregone conclusion and elephants may well be next. Even though poaching of of either species in not only illegal but poachers are allowed to be shot on site, the poaching still occurs because the black market is so lucrative. Who creates the market for rhino horn and ivory? The chinese and japanese, that's who. Not enough people are being shot on site!
Of course I don't think we really disagree. There is offensive human behavior everywhere.
It was no knee-jerk response. You put words in my mouth:
"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights."
I never characterized first amendment rights as privileges. You made up that lie in order to cast me as a fool. It wasn't simply that you disagreed with me, you had to lie about me in order to argue with me.
"...why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not. "
There is no such standard and I never said there was. Once again you make up things. Free speech protects opinions but opinions aren't everything.
""No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce?"
"No accountability" meaning people don't get penalized for knowingly making false or insufficiently researched statements. Journalists might lose their jobs and have their careers ruined for doing so but the public can't be held accountable for doing the same. I think it's clear to anyone who isn't hear just to argue or has a limited grasp of the obvious.
"Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech."
Vigilantism is the taking of law into one's own hands. It does not involve law enforcement, it bypasses it. It does not require violence either, and free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. It's clear you don't understand these concepts.
Once again, free speech does not grant the right to say anything you wish. That's well understood except apparently by you. Encouraging the public to contribute to a "majority rule" concept of facts does not produce real "facts" while the lack of accountability in the process encourages slander. I'm sorry you fail to understand the basic concept and I'm sure you'll make up some more false statements attributed to me so that you can argue your incorrect position further.
An example that's in current events: Mark Foley is commonly believed to be a pedophile even though he is not. The pages who he's supposedly hit on where physically adults and were of the age of consent. His offense was abuse of power, not sexual conduct with children. The public, IMO, could not possibly be trusted in such a matter. People can only be objective when they don't take personal offense or interest in the outcome. Professionals are required to maintain objectivity; the public will not feel any such obligation.
Slashdot Mirror
"The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that."
It's certainly good for the copyright holder when you've obtained that data through unauthorized distribution. Since they can't keep you from obtaining the data they must resort to making that data useless to you. DRM is not used to prevent you full use of your data, it's used to prevent you use of their copyrighted content.
I don't know how I missed your original post. It's not in this thread so I never saw it. These sites certainly appear to be pedophile support sites. In the few minutes I looked I didn't see anything offensive or negative.
/positive/ site for so called pedophiles that would otherwise have no where to output their feelings. If boychat didn't exist, the members would be bottling up their feelings until they did molest a child."
:-) Hopefully, as a gay man, I'm off your list of homophobics as well ;-)
"The boychat website is a very
I could see how that might be so. I don't feel that molestation is ever inevitable but I certainly appreciate the problem!
"I don't know about you but I really find this very creepy and dangerous. It seems to be a great path to temptation and justification to me."
I would think simply inappropriate but creepy. Perhaps it could lure a boylover that lurks at gay sites
"So with that being said am I off your hook for being homophobic since I didn't know the original site was a site for Gay men?"
Considering that I agree with everything you've said plus I've seen the obvious pedophile support pages, I'd have to say yes
"No, but dishing out justice (or injustice) or whatever IS required. You certainly do not know what a vigilante is."
r eshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=16741825
Krell, you really are pathetic. You took exception to the use of "vigilante" because you claimed "they certainly aren't arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them." Those were your exact words. Thank you, however, for now proving yourself wrong.
This "US vigilante group" took it upon themselves to inflict harm upon the owners of websites by petitioning a service provider to deny them access to the internet. They took that action on their own and have been properly labelled vigilantes.
"Link to the post where I said the faked quote. Can you?"
Oh come on, krell, I quoted it. You are such a stooge.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=205085&th
Here is the entire contents of your ridiculous post:
"PJ group "vigilantes"?
They certainly aren't arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them. The article says they "destroy lives", when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives.
--
Where were you when the voynix came?"
So yes, krell, you can be a vigilante with arresting, hanging or imprisoning people. No, the article said nothing about anyone "destroying lives" nor did it describe the "stinging" of anyone. I think it's clear that your post is a bunch of meaningless, judgemental bullshit.
"There's no connection between speech and vigilantism."
I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink. There is no connection between speech and vigilantism, but there is a connection between the deterrent of illegal speech and the deterrent of vigilantism. That is what the laws are for!
If I had a free shot at someone that I hated and I knew that a lie couldn't get back to me (and I were a sleazeball) I'd be tempted to take it. Of course, that isn't vigilantism, but if the person were a hated group, say "sexual perverts", and I were a group of rednecks then suddenly it is vigilantism.
I have no idea how you got that idea from anything I posted assuming this isn't a troll.
There is nothing OK about committing sex acts with children regardless of gender. There is nothing wrong with having sexual attractions because those you cannot choose. The attractions in pedophilia are not crimes; the bahavior is.
It's important to understand what exactly constitutes a "child" in this case as well. Pedophilia does not involve 17 year olds unless they look and act like 10 year olds. That is the sexual truth of the matter regardless of the complex and varying legal definitions.
Finally, nothing presented in the article described pedophilia AT ALL. For all we know, pedophilia (through "minor attracted adults) was dropped just to create a knew-jerk reaction against an adult homosexual site.
"Have you looked at the sites in question yourself?"
/.'ed. Several other posters claimed they were simply gay male adult sites.
I have not because the article was
I would like to see these sites and would appreciate links to them so I can see them myself.
"The one I looked at was full of profanity and had no passwords or age warnings on it."
Does Canada have restrictions on that?
"The site I could get to was called Boychat. It is a site for people that are attracted to boys! Not adult men but BOYS!"
Gay men who are young and/or look young are called boys. Again, I haven't seen the sight but "boys" is a term commonly used and it does not carry the connotation of pedophilia.
"They talk about channeling their sexual interest into "positive" channels like mentoring. Guess what that is a REALLY BAD IDEA.
Pedophiles are like alcoholics. They need to avoid their addiction at ALL TIMES."
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not an addiction. You cannot possibly make an argument for your position.
"For all I knew when I posted my comments those sites could have been for men that like little girls. I had no idea that it was hosted on a Gay oriented website."
That's true, but religious zealots love to associate pedophilia with homosexuality when no such link exists. The fact that others here claim that the sites are simply gay men sites leads me to believe that's what's going on.
"I think that a Gay lifestyle website posting in any positive way about a pedophile website is one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever seen!"
Absolutely. Homosexuals are not associated with pedophiles and have enough image problems on their own.
"Legal or not those sites are sites for pedophiles. People that have sexual desires for children.
If I didn't know better I would have guessed that it was a fake site run by the extreme right to feed any homosexual hysteria."
Maybe. I'd love to see them for myself. I'd also like to see documentation that the sites are the ones that were requested to be removed.
"No, I simply don't want children to be molested."
:-)
Few would disagree with you. Talk about a one-two punch!
"Like you can separate the two, and treat one as a heinous crime while being accepting of the other."
You can. It is not a crime to feel however you do but acceptance doesn't mean trust them blindly with your kids!
"If you accept the validity of the identity as morally neutral, then the normalization of the expression of the identity is the next step."
I do accept the sexuality as "morally neutral". I do not accept that child molestation as normal. It absolutely does not follow.
You are suggesting that those attracted to children cannot prevent themselves from committing child abuse and that isn't so. A man that is sexually attracted to a child does not inherently want to rape that child any more than a straight man wants to rape a woman. I would imagine that it might be easy for a pedophile to fool himself into believing things that aren't so. That's true for all of us.
"The religious right's "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to homosexuality should show how successful that approach is. Ask Ted Haggard how successful it's been."
No come on. The religious right is a hate organization cloaked in fake biblical righteousness and there's absolutely nothing about their approach to homosexuals that can be considered "love the sinner". Besides, how has it failed?
Since you brought it up, Ted Haggard is a prime, and very current, example of what happens when you force someone into the closet under the greatest possible oppression. Your approach of giving absolutely no consideration toward someone because of his sexuality would likely contribute to his behavior rather than discourage it. I can't prove that, of course, but a pedophile that's invisible cannot be helped or dealt with in any way.
"I do have a degree of sympathy for pedophiles, because I agree that their condition is outside their choice. That doesn't mean they aren't public hazards, in the same way that a plague carrier is. In light of that, they can be dealt with humanely or not (and it should go without saying that humanely is my choice), but dealt with they must be."
And this is where we agree. I don't think there's any reason to believe that a pedophile inherently desires to harm any more than anyone else does. Who really knows how many there are because you don't hear about the ones who keep to themselves and never harm a child. It may be the case that many deal with it themselves.
I agree with you. Sex crimes are the only crimes punishable with open-ended sentences and are the only ones where sentences can be extended after the fact. I think that's disgusting. If you do the crime you do the time unless sex is involved---then you pay the price for the rest of your life. I can't see how the legal system gets away with it.
Regarding the corporate firewall, your company is entitled to limit what it's resources are used for so it doesn't need justification for filtering any subject when it gets down to it. My last employer wouldn't block such a query. Instead, it would log it in hopes of finding a firable offense to use against you. I kid you not.
"Actually, it has to do with taking the law into your own hands."
That's right, it means taking it on yourself to dish out justice to others. "Arresting people or hanging them or even imprisoning them" isn't required even though you seem to think it is.
"Nice going! Since I said nothing at all to remotely support this, you make up a quote where I did."
Sure you did. You judged people without even knowing who the hell the article even talked about. I'll remind you:
"The article says they "destroy lives", when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives."
Sound familiar? There wasn't even any mention of a single person who'd even broken a law in the article. You not only don't know what a vigilante is, you make a bad one.
My point is that you jumped to judgement without seeing any actual content. You have no idea why the term was used but you were more than happy to assume that it meant "pedophiles". The ambiguity worked but not in the manner you thought. The purpose was to dupe YOU.
Being gay myself, I don't think it's likely that I'll be the one promoting homophobia.
"Nothing will make the extreme right happier than equateing Homosexuality and "minor-attraction"."
And that's exactly what happened. They sold you on the idea that a gay site was a pedophilia site by using that term.
Idk about Canada but you are wrong about the US. In the US such concerns are a state matter and the laws vary. Some states still attempt to outlaw homosexuality entirely but few states define the age of consent at 18. 16 and 17 are the typical ages.
Curiously, Texas, and perhaps others, define the age of consent below 18 (17 in TX) but have laws prohibiting certain behavior with minors (below 18). As a result, the legal age remains 18.
Pedophilia as a legal concept is not necessarily the same as the sexual orientation itself.
Did NARAL or MoveOn.org "lobby" to have gay adult sites sensored by calling them pedophile sites?
"What the hell is a "minor attracted adult", if not a pedophile?"
Attraction to those under the age of the majority. That includes more than prepubescent children.
"it bothers me to see the mainstreaming of pedophilia with terms like this."
Has it occurred to you that it may be a tactic to bash those who can't be shown, or even suspected, of pedophilia at all?
"They talked about 'coming out', and about accepting themselves, and reclaiming terms like 'boy lover'. They were mentally and emotionally setting the stage for the same sort of battle for public acceptance that the gay community has fought and mostly won over the last few decades."
What is the problem with this? So far you've described no criminal behavior at all. Are you advocating keeping people with this condition be as emotionally deprived as possible? How is that a help to society?
"I don't want them to 'come out', I don't want them to have supportive underground communities, and it was saddening to see the entirely appropriate discourse of public acceptance of homosexuality and queer identity perverted like this."
It isn't perverted. Being closeted for them is no different. Plenty have said the same things about gays.
"This is exactly the slippery slope that the right uses to justify non-acceptance of gays, and we need to bring a big heavy boot down on crap like 'minor attracted adult' to demonstrate that we can make moral choices about who we will accept and who we won't."
My moral choice is to accept what everyone's condition is. There is a big difference between accepting a person's condition and accepting their actions. It is child molestation that is the issue and nothing you've described has anything to do with that. You just seemed consumed by hatred and fear of those you don't know.
"The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance. It starts by calling bullshit on terms like 'minor attracted adult'."
I don't agree with any of that. First, homosexuality hasn't been mainstreamed outside progressive areas. Second, pedophilia is a condition that people develop outside their choice, and it's child molestation that has to be prevented. Finally, you have no idea why the term "minor attracted adult" was chosen and you have no basis for declaring that it means "pedophile" (or more accurately "child molester in your usage).
"The way we put that is pedophile."
Apparently by "we" you mean "us gay bashers" since the sites are apparently simple gay men sites.
"Without knowing the websites it is hard to tell if they where legal in the US or not."
So go ahead an label them pedophile sites. Good job.
"Kind of hard to judge with absolutely no real information, but that has never stopped anybody on Slashdot before."
Not even you.
Criminal in the minds of the vigilantes. Apparently the sites are nothing more than gay men's sites. Sounds like nothing more than good old gay bashing, redneck vigilantes to me.
True, although pedophilia involves the sexually immature or sexually maturing. "minor attracted" includes more than that.
I would add that the pages Mark Foley pursued were 17 years old and he has incorrectly been labeled a pedophile.
You are exactly right of course. "Minor-attracted adults" aren't uncommon at all since "minor" is an arbitrary age that is typically older than the age of sexual maturity.
Ah, krell, you're never gonna learn what a vigilante is, are you? If it doesn't involve beating with a baseball bat it isn't vigilantism, right krell?
"...when in fact the guys they "sting" destroy their own lives."
How so? By seeking support at legal sites? Is getting Verizon to censor legal content an example of that "sting"? Nice leaping to conclusions, krell. Good thing you aren't in "law enforcement". Just a member of the mob.
"We're gonna have a first class trial followed by a first class hangin'." - krell
No, he didn't. He continued to produce but we'll never know what he might have accomplished had it not occurred. There's no doubt, though, that his life was ruined.
That's disturbing, but Hawaii does have a large amount of Japanese investment and Japanese tourist traffic. Shark fin soup isn't an American or Hawaiian dish.
"There's quite often a difference between whether or not someone did something and whether or not they have been charge or convicted."
...but not for the purposes of pedophilia. It is popular to claim so because it serves to demonize people like Mark Foley. Foley is not a pedophile from what we've seen so far and the pages he pursued were of the age of consent. Now, if all that Foley did was talk dirty to these pages and the law recognizes that the pages were mature enough to consent, how can anyone justify claiming that Foley committed a sex crime against a child? The federal government will, of course, since they've overridden the age of consent for internet communications (what bullshit is that?) but the only thing Foley was guilty of is abuse of his power and of violations of behavior in the House. His actual offenses aren't much different than Clinton's (except for Clinton's purgery of course).
My disclaimer was appropriate considered I didn't have any personal knowledge of the matter.
"I checked the definition of "pedophile". It involved love for "children".
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent/peripubescent children. It does not include young adults after puberty but younger than the age of the majority (which high school seniors would be with rare exception). Maybe you'd like to check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
"In some definitions, but not most, high-school agers count into the group that is "children.""
"I thought you said there was no connection between free speech and vigilantism (which there isn't)."
Yes, that's true.
"Now you assert one (and there still isn't). "
I did not. I said that removing the deterrent to slander would encourage vigilantism. Slander is not free speech.
"The civil system (lawsuits over defamation) should take care of this."
Not if the process provides anonymity to those who do the damage. If there is accountability then the system has a chance to work, but the whole concept of "crowdsourcing" works against that. If every source of information is documented and verified then there'd be no difference between crowdsourcing and what's always been done. The difference between the two is volume and accountability. You can't sue for slander when you can't figure out which neighbor is spreading the lies.
Don't pull that racist bullshit on me. It was YOU that used the term "East Asian nation" and that means more than Japan. I damn well know the difference.
A screaming monkey is worse than a factory killed pig because it's the screaming in agony that's part of the sadistic pleasure participants get out of the barbaric experience. Everyone gets that except assholes like you.
The Japanese and Chinese are both guilty of especially heinous abuse of wildlife. You won't find shark fin soup sold in the US (though you will in Japan) nor would Anericans slaughter a rhino for a few pounds of powdered horn hair. Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan are the largest markets for the illegal ivory trade. There's a big difference between your "East Asian nations" scumbags and the rest of the world.
"I did not misquote you (no words in your mouth, keyboard, or whatever)."
You didn't quote me at all. You attributed first amendment rights as "privilege" to me. I quoted it already; no need to do so again.
"Which means realization of freedom of the press because someone is not held "accountable" to the opinions of the censor for disagreeing with the censor. "
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I understand what freedom of the press is.
"Your second sentence contradicts the first. If someone takes the law into their own hands, they are doing their own "law enforcement." That is how vigilantism relates to the subject of law enforcement. "
It does not. Your problem is that you interpret "law enforcement" differently that I've used it. "Law enforcement", in my usage, is a function of government and describes organizations that exist to accomplish it. Vigilantism bypasses that. Vigilantes in no way perform "law enforcement" (your usage); vigilantes implement "frontier justice".
"Supposedly....? "
Yes, because he has not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing. It certainly appears, through IM sessions I've read online, that he participated in "dirty talk" with someone of the age of consent. I don't defend him---I'm as appalled as anyone. My comment was that his offense was his abuse of power, not pedophilis as is popularly believed. Mark Foley is slime but he is not a child molester (as far as we've seen to date).
"The public, in the humble opinion of a higher legal authority, already is trusted in such matters."
No, it has not.
The first amendment does not grant anyone the right to state, as fact, that Mark Foley is a pedophile. Doing so would be libel/slander (assuming there is no additional evidence than we've publicly seen). That goes right to the root of the issue and it seems to be what you consistently overlook. Your right to free speech ends when damage to another person begins. At that point you had better have facts to back up your statements or you are violating the rights of another person. Encouraging such disregard for the rights of others through immunity to consequences would encourage vigilantism IMO (and the opinion of another poster). We see a lot of that already with the popularity of blogging and editorializing that is presented as legitimate journalism i.e. the "presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.".
"There is always subjectivity. The problem with the "professionals" is that too often, they are very subjective. But they operate under a cloak of assumed subjectivity."
We certainly agree there although I think you mean "assumed objectivity". Law enforcement is notoriously subjective depending on the nature of the crime and those who commit them. I do not defend policemen, prosecutors, or judges for their objectivity at all yet I don't believe throwing the public into the mix will improve matters. Regarding journalists, it seems that profession has largely gone to hell.
I think there are cultural differences and I do think asian cultures are worse. The examples you give are either juvenile behavior or not examples of sadistic cruelty. I'm not arguing that it's not human nature because it certainly is, but I do believe there's a big difference between boys sticking a firecracker up a cat's butt and grown men cracking open a monkey skull over a business dinner.
To take a particularly offensive example, sharks are being finned to extinction in many parts of the world and many species are under serious threat. The sole purpose of the activity is for chinese shark fin soup. The sharks most in demand are the largest, slowest reproducing sharks i.e. the ones MOST threatened by such an activity. In other words, customers are willing to pay the most for the fins that do the most damage to the population (and I believe that's intentional). I can't imagine what could be more offensive.
For other offensive examples, the extinction of rhinos in the wild is a foregone conclusion and elephants may well be next. Even though poaching of of either species in not only illegal but poachers are allowed to be shot on site, the poaching still occurs because the black market is so lucrative. Who creates the market for rhino horn and ivory? The chinese and japanese, that's who. Not enough people are being shot on site!
Of course I don't think we really disagree. There is offensive human behavior everywhere.
"The knee-jerk use of the term "lie"..."
It was no knee-jerk response. You put words in my mouth:
"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights."
I never characterized first amendment rights as privileges. You made up that lie in order to cast me as a fool. It wasn't simply that you disagreed with me, you had to lie about me in order to argue with me.
"...why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not. "
There is no such standard and I never said there was. Once again you make up things. Free speech protects opinions but opinions aren't everything.
""No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce?"
"No accountability" meaning people don't get penalized for knowingly making false or insufficiently researched statements. Journalists might lose their jobs and have their careers ruined for doing so but the public can't be held accountable for doing the same. I think it's clear to anyone who isn't hear just to argue or has a limited grasp of the obvious.
"Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech."
Vigilantism is the taking of law into one's own hands. It does not involve law enforcement, it bypasses it. It does not require violence either, and free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. It's clear you don't understand these concepts.
Once again, free speech does not grant the right to say anything you wish. That's well understood except apparently by you. Encouraging the public to contribute to a "majority rule" concept of facts does not produce real "facts" while the lack of accountability in the process encourages slander. I'm sorry you fail to understand the basic concept and I'm sure you'll make up some more false statements attributed to me so that you can argue your incorrect position further.
An example that's in current events: Mark Foley is commonly believed to be a pedophile even though he is not. The pages who he's supposedly hit on where physically adults and were of the age of consent. His offense was abuse of power, not sexual conduct with children. The public, IMO, could not possibly be trusted in such a matter. People can only be objective when they don't take personal offense or interest in the outcome. Professionals are required to maintain objectivity; the public will not feel any such obligation.