In this post, a contributor was chastised by a moderator for pointing out that a loquacious pedophile who often posts on this board was an object lesson for why sex offender registries are necessary. Though I realize that accusations of criminal behavior are a serious breech of our shared social contract, is it reasonable to expect reticence in this instance? If a poster has made the case, repeatedly, that he considers it ethical to have sex with children under certain circumstances, is it not entirely within any rational construct of civil discourse to point out that existence of this sort of person serves as an argument for collective action to prevent sex crimes?
I see the moderator’s point, but it’s just not realistic to ignore the obvious when it’s made so blatantly apparent.
Isn’t a 550-pound elephant either an infant or anorexic?
Anyway, I read tom’s warning less as a defense of you-know-who than as an effort to avoid making the GD thread all about you-know-who. Personal attacks belong in the Pit.
Further, doesn’t there come a time when negative statements cease to be an insult because their object has placed himself so inexorably outside the doxa as to be beyond further denigration? Say someone posted that the country should be run according to their interpretation of Beatles songs. Someone - probably multiple people - would immediately jump in that this was dangerous because Charles Manson did it. This wouldn’t be an insult to Charles Manson. In this context, he’s beyond insulting. So, too, with the case of people who posit that sex with children may well be ethical in some situations–the demonstrated existence of such a mindset is a powerful point in favor of community activism against sex offenders, even if a particular person arguing that sex with children may well be ethical in some situations is not themselves a criminal in any way. Statements of this sort just aren’t an attack.
In my opinion, there’s no reason to bring up names if it isn’t an insult. (It’s not like we have a bunch of pedophiles on this board.) I think the reason you’d be allowed to bring up Manson is because he’s not on the board. I still see it as impugning his character. It’s just that, since everybody already does that anyways, it doesn’t have much effect.
I do wonder if the reason it does not seem to be an insult is because his previous actions allow the guy to be regarded as less than human. Let’s try it out:
What obvious aspect of this are you seeing that is being ignored?
You ask if it is reasonable to expect reticence. Extraordinary reticence is called for in the situation where emotionally charged issues are the topic of debate.
If that had passed without comment, I’d take it as a sign that my “some people just need to be beaten with steel rods until their bones are powder” policy was acceptable. Not that I would name any specific person, it’d just be:
Some random poster: And that’s why I hold this particular political belief.
Me: And that’s why some people just need to be beaten with steel rods until their bones are powder.
It’s basically being a jerk outside of the pit.
Even if you don’t agree with his man’s philosophies and way of life and all- it’s being a jerk to the guy.
Person who advocates having sex with children ≠ child molester or rapist.
Thus, the statement does not flow logically from the actions of the person. It’s your spin on that person, and you are casting him in a way that is clearly insulting. Not to mention, by calling him a rapist or child molester, you may be making an incorrect factual assertion, which is potentially defamatory.
In the case I’m citing, no one was calling anyone on the SDMB a rapist or child molester. They were instead pointing out the object lesson that there are people out there who feel that it is ethical to have sex with children under certain circumstances. This alone scares the hell out of most parents, and one action they may take is to campaign against sex offenders living in their neighborhoods.
Nothing jerky about that. No one advocating assault with rebar. And I do feel that it is unrealistic to expect the SDMB to ignore the object lesson of rationalizing pedophiles among us, especially when discussing sex offender registrations.
That’s just disingenuous. How was AAWAYCGnot calling Cesario a rapist or child molester in that post? He/she said “as evidenced by the presence of Cesario”, meaning Cesario serves as an example of the distorted thinking, not of paedophiles in general, but specifically “rapists and child molesters”. Which he could only do by being one. Your attempted gloss on the post is not what AAWAYCG intended, as his/her posts in the Cesario pitting easily show.
I read MrDibble’s post as saying that I should use the term “paedophile” instead of “pedophile”. I don’t know what else he may have meant.
ETA: I do stand by point that pedophiles (however you wish to spell it) are beyond insulting. You are free to disagree. I’m not a mod, and I really have nothing more to add on the matter.
This has been adequately covered on the SDMB. I submit that the rather violent reactions engendered by the idea that it is ethical to have sex with children under some circumstances are usually not softened by any sort of non-practicing disclaimer. YMMV.
I don’t give a rodent’s rectum what’s been covered on the SDMB.
You are stating outright that what a person thinks and feels makes them “beyond insulting” as though they are beneath the Forum rules regardless of how they have handled an obviously challenging issue of their sexuality.
