I am saying plenty - you just don’t want to be open-minded that there might be a way to discuss pedophilia in the abstract, and rather than letting those of us who might want our ignorance fought partake, you and others have shouted down the very topic instead of simply staying out of the discussion.
come on, no one participate in more than all threads it seems, so you can’t have left one more alone?
Please don’t defend me with idiocy like that.
Discussing icky sexual matters in the abstract is par for the course when discussing Free Speech. That is all that happened in the one thread I am talking about.
I told you, if he hadn’t brought it up, I would have, because it was in the news in Australia a few weeks ago when I was in the thread. I dropped the thread because a mod asked me to,not because of Child Porn, but because the other people there were getting frustrated in their unwillingness to see what was right in front of them. Which is a common theme.
The other 7 or 8 or 8, carry on.
Maybe you should actually read that one thread before you cast yourself with the other idiots that have commented on it without reading it.
Who if this was appropriate, and it was, then why dod Giraffe include it in the list.
And he was not discussing “child porn”, he was discussing “the news in Australia as it relates to Free Speech”, which you might expect in a thread called “Free Speech in Australia”.
Your squickiness is proving NOTHING except that you are have squickiness.
There is a very current proposal regarding a country-wide internet firewall a la China for Australia. It has been tested, and the list of sites and topics that are tested and planned to be banned are not legal to publish. It can be assumed those are meant to include child porn, but without knowing the list, no one can know what is on it.
This is not 2 years old, this is current.
google is your friend.
Both. Can you not see the difference between discussing country-wide censorship and tooting “Ask the Pedophile?”?
If not, then maybe there is a grade-school level discussion board that might be more appropriate for your level of understanding.
I don’t understand the outrage. Giraffe said the guy brings up pedophilia a lot. You post a thread where he did bring it up. Why does it matter if it was on topic or not? The point still stands. He talks about it way too often.
Yeah, it got to that abotu 2 WEEKS into it. That is so determined to discuss it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
If I knew the thread was still open, I would not have dropped it. I see nothing untoward whatsoever in that thread (as of the last time I looked earlier today).
If someone can point out exactly what is untoward in that thread, with a link to the post itself, that might help.
But right now, you are castigating the gut for standing up for Free Speech, which means standing up for unpopular speech. You all know the old say “Popular speech needs no defense”.
Look, if some skinhead person came on here and castigated Jews and others, they would quickly get a reputation. But if they also participated in a free speech thread, then they would be right about that, and many of us would defend their right to say it - even if we are the target of the hate in the first place - rather than take that right away.
Before today, I took it as a given that most people here understood that.
He didn’t bring it up in the thread in a way that was not germane to the topic of the thread.
The guy never hit my radar before, and in the DUI thread, I didn’t even get Mean Old Lady’s snark. I did note it at the time, but her type of humor made me think it was just that - some over the topic humor. No one else responded at all.
I am guessing he was not really on most objector’s radar before this thread?
How often is “too often” to discuss a topic? Why not give people a chance to discuss pedophilia in the abstract? It is a legitimate filed of research and treatment.
I provided a link in another thread to www.atsa.com. Check it out. I am sure people could have phrased decent enough questions to elicit decent answers. After all, he proved in the thread in question, he is capable of discussing CP in the abstract when there is a context around it.
Do you have a brain tumor or something?
Your resort to ad hominem attacks when your rhetoric is shown to be a rational failure is ipressive and persuasive.
Well done in making yourself seem, well, what with the following you are building and the way you are doing it, Palin-esque.
not_alice, The topic of pedophilia has already been discussed in the abstract. Cesario’s viewpoint has not been quashed or chilled or anything like that. You can look at Cesario’s profile to see his prior posts. There’s a thread that’s a few months old (re: have you ever/attraction to underage persons) in which he extensively describes his views advocating legalization of sex with children, and child pornography. He offers this viewpoint in other threads, too. Why don’t you check it out if you are interested?
ETA: I still don’t think it’s a good idea to copy Cesario’s old posts, in light of the do-not-provoke rule.
How ca you say he hasn’t been squashed or chilled? He is not allowed to address the topic anymore and we are not allowed to “provoke”. Another poster, who I had never seen before, showed sympathy and was briefly suspended. If that is not squashing or chilling, then what is?
Are you suggesting that no “Ask the…” can ever be on a topic that the poster has discussed as recently as a few months ago, or on a poster’s favorite topic?
Or are you really reaching for straws because the entire subject squicks you out, even though you surely have not even broached the academic and professional literature on the topic?
The most astonishing thing about not_alice is that he is able to post such a massive amount of verbiage, while apparently being entirely incapable of reading. I’m not sure how he does it. Perhaps he’s just banging randomly on the key board, and the resulting posts represent a staggering statistical anomaly.
If you weren’t familiar with Cesario’s post history before today, as you assert, I doubt you could have read much of it in the last half hour. Those threads are quite long.
Funny how no one has presented any evidence in their ad hominem attacks on me, including Miller.
How about, if you are such a great reader yourself, and my arguments are so poorly constructed, you simply deconstruct them point by point? Don’t repeat what girraffe or others have said, put my words in a quote box, and show me how I am wrong.
Show us how the Aussie Free Speech thread is qualitatively the same as the others Giraffe listed.
Show us how the posts there are being held up as “child porn” because of their content instead of who wrote them.
Show us that Giraffe’s larger point wouldn’t stand without the afterthought of mentioning that thread.
Show us how Giraffe was lying when he said maybe he didn’t look at that thread as closely as he would have liked.
Show us how we should never be able to discuss pedophilia from a dispassionate, academic point of view. Do be sure to let me know why that is. It’s a common topic in my household as my GF works with sex offenders.
Show us how everyone has to participate in every thread, and can’t simply ignore some that are on topics that don’t interest them or that they don’t understand and don’t want their ignorance fought on.
Show us how Free Speech only is good for popular speech, traditionally speaking.
Seriously, what is wrong with all of you that you are arguing against arguing for Free Speech because a topic squicks you out?
Stop with the ad hominem attacks and address some of these points if you ever want to be taken seriously.
I didn’t read any of it in the past half-hour. I learned about his posting history from all the fall out from the proposed “Ask the Pedophile” thread, which reached all the way up to Ed Zotti.
I can imagine the shitstorms that might have occurred before. Doesn’t change the point that Giraffe erred in the post I referred to, and that the whole business is chilling.
You know, it occurs to me that sex offenders are the “untouchable” caste of our society, and pedophiles are probably the lowest branch of that group.
I for one would welcome a “Ask the …” thread from anyone in any low caste in any society.
I am stunned, simply stunned, that most people here, where we come together to fight ignorance, not display it, would not welcome the same opportunity.
Why don’t you open a thread in GQ to discuss the research you are interested in? This is a serious question.
There’s a certain irony in someone demanding to be presented with evidence that they are unable to understand evidence that’s being presented to them.
@not_alice
Your incredulity is irrelevant. Your assertion is that Giraffe was wrong in using the thread as an example of Cesario talking about a subject “too much.” You don’t seem to get that the fact that it was germane to the topic is irrelevant. It fit the pattern of behavior that was being established.
Your failure to understand seems to be that you don’t understand that, if you’ve talked about something illegitimately for a while, it gets to the point where people don’t want to hear you, even if you have a legitimate point. You also seem to be missing that someone who is shoehorning examples of a topic into various threads would jump at a chance to do so legitimately.
But the worst thing seems to be that you are projecting your motives onto Cesario. You had proper motives when you discussed the topic. But, due to Cesario’s past and future actions, we suspect he did not. The evidence in that one thread may be weaker, but it still establishes the pattern of wanting to talk about it.
Finally, to address your irrelevant tangent: You don’t seem to get that we aren’t saying “No pedophiles.” We are saying “No Cesario talking about being a pedophile.” Our ire is not directed at the lower caste in society. It’s directed at one individual who was being a jerk by constantly bringing it up in irrelevant places where he knew it caused distress to people, to the point where people didn’t even want to see him talk about it legitimately.
Why? The pedophiles here have been sufficiently chilled - why would anyone who has been on this board in the last few days think it is a safe topic to discuss dispassionately now, even if they might have before?
Not everyone has the stomach for the attack that have come. They are par for the course pretty much everywhere, I had hoped this place was above it.
Except for a few attorneys (and not the nutcase in Ontario), I can’t think of anyone that might take an open minded approach to it. And that is too bad, because I think a few well phrased questions in an “Ask the Pedophile thread” might have opened a few eyes among lurkers.
Me, I have plenty of real professionals handy to discuss the research with socially, and I do. My ignorance is fought right here at home, but it would have been interesting to fight it a little bit here in SDMB-land.
I understand it well.
It is not persuasive.
Perhaps you would like to take a crack at putting together an answer to the issues I have listed, using evidence instead of “truthiness”, instead of tossing out bon mots from on high?
How on earth can you say “the pedophiles here have been sufficiently chilled,” when you have participated in the other CURRENT Pit thread that has been started by a self-identified pedophile? As you are aware, that thread has been a civil discussion.
I think you underestimate the number of people who would be willing to participate in a GQ thread discussing research regarding pedophilia. Did you read what Argent Towers and Jimmy Chitwood posted in the ATMB threads? How about the other Pit thread? I’m checking out for the night, but I hope you reconsider your decision about the GQ thread.