The Dope prides itself on being able to talk about even controversial topics, as long as the discussions are kept civil. The topic in question is about the social policy of allowing or censuring sex with children, both between children and between adults and children. The topic was not a “how to” manual. Rather, it was discussing the rationale for making it illegal and the social and emotional consequences of society’s current beliefs.
The OP was opened in 2011, reopened a year ago in January 2015, and then Henry Miller opened it again this year. He posted a lengthy but on-topic and reasoned position at odds with current social mores and laws. He went to lengths to try to explain why our current social mores and laws are actually more harmful than good. He did not state a desire to have sex with children. Rather, he argued that the emotional damage to most children who have experienced nonviolent sexual activity from adults comes not from the sexual experience itself, but from the judgement of society about sex with children, that judgement being internalized to make them feel guilty for the experience.
I think that is at least a fair topic for consideration. Yes, it is controversial. Unfortunately, any discussion of the topic leads some posters to wonder at the motivations of why someone would think to question the issue. And the more one defends an alternate position, the more is spawns projections of motives upon the arguer.
That behavior is not limited to discussions of pedophilia. It is rampant in debates. It is just extra pejorative in topics where one side of the argument is deemed morally deviant or inferior, such as discussions of race that inevitably get turned into accusations of racism.
-
Yes, this was a zombie thread, but it was reopened with on topic and substantive discussion of the issue, not with just a one-off “me too” or swipe at a long-gone poster. There was active discussion on the topic. That is usually an acceptable reason to reopen a thread.
-
While the poster that reopened the thread needs to think about formatting for ease of reading, the wall-o-text was, nevertheless, a rational discussion. It was not standard wackadoo ranting with random all-caps and extra exclamation points. All that would be appropriate is a note to the poster to consider the presentation into smaller paragraphs.
-
If the thread is close to generating into abuse, isn’t that the point you remind people that the topic may be hot button, but the rules of the forum will be enforced? Rather than preemptively closing a thread because some people are about to break the rules.
I think the warning was appropriate. While Tangent might not have intended it as an insult and just thought he was summarizing the poster’s desires, I believe that falls under the same application of the rule about calling someone a racist. It is a pejorative assertion about the poster’s motives rather than a discussion of the actual topic.
However, an instruction to keep the thread about the topic, not about the poster as a person, would have been appropriate. If you must cast aspersions about the poster’s motives, that is what the Pit is for.
I, myself, do not have a desire to enter the discussion in that thread, so it being closed doesn’t impact me directly. However, the issue in question for me is how controversial topics will be moderated on this board. Can discussions be had on controversial topics, or are all such threads doomed to closure because someone is going to start impugning the motives of the posters?
