Thank you for making my case for me.
Now, now… he gets his information from plugging himself into his girlfriend/fiance/wife who has something to do with counseling/psychology. Since he’s getting his information through his hoodilly there’s bound to be some absorption issues. Just be glad he’s not fucking a doctor.
“Is there a doctor in the house? This man needs help!”
“No, but I fuck one. I can help you!”
I’m hoping Giraffe just comes along to give him his pound of flesh so he’ll stop this nonsense.
Thanks for stopping by! I hope you find something more to your liking in your travels soon!
Is it Groundhog Day in here?
I’m sure not_alice stayed in Holiday Inn Express last night too.
I was still in the tread at that point, and I didn’t know of Cesario. It didn’t set off any alarms with more or anyone else, like the the other posts Giraffe had. It is not substantively the same.
I think you are relying on the part where he says his country is hostile to him as tantamount to an admission that he like child porn, but I didn’t see it at the time he wrote it, and I don’t see it now. Everyone who feels hostility in the law is a pedophile now?
I just reviewed the thread in some more detail,but not with with a fine tooth comb. I examined each Cesario post though. I still don’t see where he says, in that thread, that he like kiddie porn. All I see is a rote Free Speech discussion by all involved, including me, to be frank.
Perhaps you can actually show me the post where he says that he likes kiddie porn, since you are asserting it is there?
No, and I’ll be serious here, there is nothing anyone can say that you will look at objectively. You have mischaracterized Giraffe’s post and since no one can post links to something you made up, you think you’re right.
My above link to my response to your request for quotes was direct and straightforward. It quotes you both. The quotes make clear as to his and your intent. Plainly said, you stated his links don’t say what he says they do, I showed you that they did. Everyone on this board (except you) recognized the behavior that prompted Giraffe’s OP. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
You’ve repeatedly changed your arguments to fit the current tone of the replies to you in this thread. No one including me is willing to go do more research that you will dismiss and twist into something it’s not.
At this point you are either trolling or just way to stupid to converse with. Sorry, I’m done.
There’s a similarity. But Drmark trolled us through arrogance and condescension, while notalice trolls by faking willfull misunderstanding of what others are saying.
So what do you think he meant by Australia being hostile to him?
Now what could he wish to advocate? I guess you could put on your big blinders and make up all sorts of hypotheticals, but in the context of the kiddy porn discussion and the fact that he says Australia is hostile to him there’s only one reasonable conclusion. You shouldn’t blame everyone else for reaching that obvious conclusion even if you are steadfastly determined not to.
This is a thing of beauty and will be a joy forever. Bless your heart,** not_alice**. Usually when dealing with delusional people, one says that one does not see what the deluded one sees. In this case, we all see what you don’t see, but like the deluded one, we can’t make you see what you will not see. See?
OK - no cover charge for you tonight. Tell your friends! And don’t forget to tip your waitress.
But it does not contain the smoking gun Cesario quite from the thread that you and others keep alleging is there.
It is not there.
Stop pretending it is, and then you won’t look like an ass promising to show it to me and coming up empty.
Others have tried and failed, why you wanted to try too is beyond me, but hey, whatever turns you on.
So says you. You said that, in that thread, he said “I like kiddie porn”. I asked you to showme the post. I am still waiting.
You did no such thing. What are you, in 3rd grade or something? Alleging and showing are 2 different things.
If you think you showed me the quote where, inthat thread, he said “I like kiddie porn” as you allege, then please give me the post number and the actual context that you are relying on.
To pretend that I have not said thet Gireaffe likely made his case WITHOUT the Free Speech thread is disingenuous of you at best.
You are trying to make a quote in a thread that isn’t there, instead of simply agreeing with me that the mention of that thread was superfluous and unnecessary and did not support his larger point.
You’ve repeatedly changed your arguments to fit the current tone of the replies to you in this thread. No one including me is willing to go do more research that you will dismiss and twist into something it’s not.
The troll is you, and see ya round…
so when you say :
You didn’t actually mean you would “get me quotes” that I could verify by myself.
OK, got it.
I dunno. I was not familiar with him when he wrote that, and it seemed generic to me. Not I was very active in that thread, and frankly based on what I learned about Australila, I was feeling they are hostile to anyone who has US-style Free Speech precepts in mind, including me.
The post raised no ire in anyone, whether posting or lurking, at the time, as the others in other threads have done instantly. Why do you think that was?
If he wanted to be more specific, we all know now that he could have been. But that quote with no other context is simply meaningless. Which is why Giraffe ought have left it out of his post - the rest were sufficient to make his point.
The hypothetical is yours. I didn’t know the guy then, he was not making any big issue out of kiddie porn. How the hell should I or anyone else who didn’t know him know what he can’t advocate for? It was clearly so tangential to the thread that no one bothered to ask.
Australia is hostile to a lot of people, including some of its own, from my understanding.
And judging from the response on the thread, I came away feeling that Australia would be hostile to ME if I went there and discussed Free Speech issues the way I would want to. So what?
You can make me see. It is easy, and I have said so from the first post - where is the quote that is anything like the 5 other quotes Giraffe listed in his OP?
Cut and paste, that is all it takes.
PlaneJain was the most recent to try to find it an fail, if you can do better, then by all means give it a go.
Yes he was making a big issue out of it. Look at the wrangling over a “description” versus “actually” kiddy porn lit.
So now that you DO know the guy, I suppose you realize everyone else was right in seeing what he was really arguing about and now you are just arguing that you can’t be blamed for not getting it at the time?
No, silly not_alice. I was referring to this part of your post (see below) and the query you end it with. Such odd leaps of logic are wonderful to behold and aren’t all that common.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that everyone who feels hostility “in the law” is a pedophile? How do you derive any of that from Giraffe’s posts or even Cesario’s?
Ah I think I see your disconnect now!
That is not him ranting about kiddy porn, that is a decent summarization of the legal debate. It is true - in the US, the legal standard has generally been that speech is allowed if there is no harm to anyone. See Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for a longer more involved discussion of the philopohical arguments at the heart of it.
But now, it can and has been argued, that child porn ought be prohibited even for the case when there is no actual victim, such as a drawing, or a computer generated image. This is what Cesario was alluding to when he was talking in that thread about “descriptions” in text. Where is the victim, when the standard for banning has generally required a victim in order to overrule the right to speak?
I was alluding to essentially the same argument in some Cesario thread or another, maybe even this one, when I asked if “Philosophy of the Bedroom” by de Sade ought be banned? It is merely text, and it contains what I am sure would make many people’s here’s head explode with vivid descriptions coupled with justification for sex with children. Yet I have seen it and similar works on the shelves of many a Borders or B&N. In real life, people don’t object to the material that Cesario and I referred to when given a chance, and in fact someone must be buying it.
In fact, I bet even many underage cashiers and bookstore workers are SELLING it and no one has objected that I know of.
Sorry, no, not as it applied to the thread in question. If you were familiar with actual free speech philosophical and legal arguments, you would see that thread for what it is.
And now you know.
So do you fancy yourself openminded enough to see that maybe when I refer to that thread as routine Free Speech stuff, I know what I am talking about? You can do more research on your own if you don’t quite get it yet, but can you at least see that I might be right and that you should double check what I am saying now to confirm it?
The other 5 threads, they are what they are as far as I am concerned.
This is my first post in this thread.
I have read both sides carefully, and with an open mind, and I do not know any of the parties involved. In the hopes that anyone will care what I have to say:
not_alice, you are wrong. Giraffe’s cite of the Australian Free Speech thread was correct, and in context. This pitting is without merit.
Also, not_alice, your propensity to go on and on and on and on strikes me as not a winning strategy. Winning a debate by simply wearing your opponent down is not really “winning”.
[quote=“not_alice, post:292, topic:528165”]
But it does not contain the smoking gun Cesario quite from the thread that you and others keep alleging is there.
[moderator warning]
not_alice, you have asked for clarification several times on the rules, so I know you understand them. STOP trying to pull Cesario into pedophilia/child porn discussions.
[/moderator warning]
I don’t. That was a question, not a statement. I was trying to see if that was YOUR conclusion.