If it appeared on a site supporting Jihad by a leading pro-Al Qaeda campaigner, who made no comment distancing himself from the remarks, i would take that as some kind of implied consent. Wouldn’t you?
I don’t think it’s that interesting as (a) I think it’s unclear that “Lee” ever existed and (b) most kids think there’s something wrong with their parents telling them not to wander the streets all night, to protect them.
I think you would do well to examine the facts of a post before you question the abilities of others.
The post referred to abuse taking place in boarding schools, accepted by the peers of the boys and other former public-school-boys.
I don’t recall reading of a time when society as a whole thought the sexual abuse of schoolboys to be acceptable. Perhaps you know different - or perhaps your insult was misplaced and my example of soldiers abusing women within a peer group that found it acceptable was valid.
I don’t know abou thalf the population of the United States but anyone who thinks that keeping slaves is not wrong is kidding themselves. Perhaps what you mean is that people who got rich off slave labour - and people who thought blacks a lower form of life - claimed it was not wrong.
He was not being “feisty” or “whining,” so you can leave the name-calling at the door. However, he was following the general protocol of the board in asking that you provide an actual citation that indicates evidence of your claim. Claiming that it has been discussed in other places is not evidence. People discuss the hoax of the moon landings in lots of places. If you do not have documented evidence or testimony that your charges are true, then a substantial part of your argument evaporates.
However such people would be guilty only of suffering from ignorance and not either stupidity or evil, so your argument still suffers from a lack of the moral absolutism that you seem to impute to it.
Or, as likely, sheer malicious prejudice. When blacks were first “discovered” by whites there was discussion as to their classification as humans. By the time slavery came around, that factual debate was done and dusted.
“you are merely the lowest form of a scandelmonger” That’s part of the general protocol of the board that says there should be no insulst or flaming is it? How does one become a moderator?
“People who owned slaves” and “people who got rich off slavery” are not the same group. Until the time the Civil War rolled around, if even then, abolitionists were a tiny minority. More people may have thought slavery was wrong, but not that many seem to have thought it was a big de.
Factually, as far as the “lower form of life” part, You’re completely wrong. Even people who were opposed to slavery did not argue that black people were as naturally intelligent and deserving of human rights as white people. Ever read Uncle Tom’s Cabin? By our standards it’s often shockingly racist and patronizing, and enforces many stereotypes. And it’s melodramatic and preachy, but nevermind my feelings about the book.
I’ve seen cites that say that only about 26% of Southern families owned slaves. How is it possible for only people who got rich off of slaves to have had enough influence to make the Civil War necessary if only 26% of the population was “getting rich off slave labor” (and the number of slave-owners actually “getting rich” off of owning slaves had to be lower than the number of slave-owners total)? If 85% of the population believed blacks were a lower form of life (which doesn’t seem an unreasonable assumption for first half of the 19th Century), are you saying that 85% of the American population was evil?
Morality is not absolute. It never was. It changes with the time and with society’s viewpoint. Things that most people don’t even blink over now would have landed you in jail or on the end of a rope 50 years ago. You CAN NOT judge the past based on the present. It’s like thinking that the ancient Egyptians were stupid because they never learned English.
It’s not malicious prejudice. People like Stowe, whose heart undeniably ached for the slaves, definitely did not think black people were anything more than overgrown children who should not be mistreated for the same reason animals should not be mistreated.
This is nonsense of the silliest sort. Whites never “discovered” blacks in any sense that would support your argument. Whites and blacks each knew the other existed extending back thousands of years. (The Greeks even had a myth explaining why the Ethiopians were so dark.) Your reference to “classification” appears to refer to Linnaeus and his successors who only began such discussions in the late 18th century–nearly 200 years after slavery had been made a matter of color in North America.
Beyond that, the phrase “malicious prejudice” has no meaning in this context. If the people who supported slavery carried an impression that blacks were inherently inferior, you need to provide evidence that it was done in spite of knowledge that the claim was wrong if you wish to attribute their belief to malice.
Clearly there was a great deal of rationalization regarding the status of various peoples once the Europeans began tramping (or sailing) around the Earth subjugating the people they found. In their efforts to demonstrate (at least to themselves) that they were genuinely superior and had the right to oppress other people, many (not all) Europeans and white North Americans clearly engaged in the worst sort of casuistry to support their beliefs. (It should be noted, of course, that most peoples and cultures have believed that they were superior to foreigners–unfortunately, Europeans got gunpowder and steam at a point where their casuistry could be supported by technology.) However, such rationalization occurred only among a select group of people who were actually interested in the topic. The majority of people simply accepted “common wisdom” just as people do today.
In this case, you should go back and read grienspace’s entire statement, not the snippet that you conveniently clipped. His claim was that IF you were simply passsing on unsupported rumors that denigrated a person for the sake of making an argument, THEN you were a scandalmonger. He gave you the out of actually providing evidence–an opportunity that you have singularly chosen to ignore.
(I have heard that one can become a moderator by offering certain members of the staff large quantities of chocolate and booze.)
I would gently suggest that you reassess this thread. It is not that you have posted nothing of merit, but you have made a number of assertions and assumptions that need to be supported by facts and you have, thus far, responded to calls for such facts by angry rants against the people who have challenged you. Who knows? You could be entirely correct in your thesis. However, you will have a better chance to persuade others to your perspective if you provide them with references to support your assertions and if you do not treat every challenge to your thought as an attack upon your person.
Tell you what, I’ll answer your rant when you tell me when it became consistent to warn someone for responding to: “you are merely the lowest form of a scandelmonger” with “Ooh, feisty!” and “whine to someone else”.
If you can’t do so - and haven’t addressed other personal insults - perhaps you aren’t capable of distinguishing between your strongly-held views, as expressed in this thread, and your duty to remind people of “the general protocol of the board” and yet tell them to “leave the name-calling at the door”.
just for the record, my question was not a suggestion that one becomes a moderator through corruption, e.g “by offering certain members of the staff large quantities of chocolate and booze”.
Rather it was a question of judgment and competence.
“Direct personal insults of other posters and “flaming” are not permitted in Great Debates (or, indeed, in any SDMB forum outside of The BBQ Pit). The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself. If you feel you must “flame” someone, please open a thread in The BBQ Pit. (Although be advised that even the BBQ Pit does have some rules.)”
You can’t dismiss the complaints of all minors that easily. The fact that some children are upset with one particular rule that’s clearly beneficial doesn’t mean every rule that upsets them is equally beneficial.
Considering that the usual justification for age of consent laws is that minors are incapable of giving meaningful consent, I think it’s quite interesting that the minor in the article obviously understands what sex is and is willing to engage in it, but the law still ignores his consent.
I accept that you are unfamiliar with the writer and that you don’t take my first point seriously.
However, you do not address the real issue that kids routinley dismiss rules intended for their protection as being unnecessary.
How do we decide which rules adults should impose and which should be at the discretion of children, most often lacking the experience and maturity to make informed decisions?
Should we decide that they might enjoy sex with adults so we have no right to restrict their access to this?
Should we statistically assess the risks of their coming to harm (presumably sexal exploitation is not considered to be harm, in this case) and let them go where they want, when they want, trusting in their own judgment?
Sure, I can only speak for the UK but 14-year-olds who wanted to freely roam many areas of Glasgow late at night might be quite unpleasantly surprised at finding out just why their parents tried to restrict them from doing so.
Of course, if they were only chatted up by men who wanted to have “consensual” sex with them, photograph them nude or bathe them, I’m sure there would be no adverse consequences at all.
Sometimes they are unnecessary. The hard part is deciding which ones are necessary and which aren’t. It’s facile and wrong to dismiss a minor’s criticism of this law by saying “aww, kids will gripe about any rule, don’t listen to him!” Even the boy who cried wolf was eventually right.
We should make an effort to separate the kids who can make informed decisions from the ones who can’t.
A person who knows what sex is, knows what the possible consequences are and how to mitigate them, is sure that s/he wants to participate in it, and is physically capable of engaging in sex without damage, should not be restricted from doing so.
Perhaps. That might be a subject for another thread. I thought we were talking about sexual attraction between adults and minors, not whether minors should wander around town at night.
Perhaps not. Some studies have shown that consensual sexual encounters between minors and adults are unlikely to result in psychological harm.
Asked you rather mildly to refrain from name-calling;
pointed out that a request for citations is a perfectly valid request in a debate;
pointed out that you have posted historical nonsense in support of one of your positions (a point I am willing to back up with historical facts and references);
pointed out that grienspace provided a hypothetical rather than directly calling you names.
It would appear, however, that you do not recognize the points I have made. That is OK. I don’t intend to be a major player in this thread.
However, I would be interested to see whether you can distinguish between the way you addressed grienspace and the way he speculated about you. I trust that he will go no further toward rudeness in any future interaction with you. (If he does go further, he will, indeed, be reprimanded.)
I would also be curious as to whether you have any better evidence than some uncited newsgroup discussions regarding your accuastions against Monty.
I am less interested in your odd views of history, although it would be interesting to discover how you came by them.
I knew what you meant regarding the selection of moderators, but I had hoped I would not have to spell out my actions so clearly. Please note the construction of the sentence to which you continue to object:
(Highlighting mine.)
This was clearly a challenge to provide evidence. The presentation of evidence removes you from the realm of those who repeat slander without evidence. A simple posting to a reputable source immediately removes from you any taint of scandal mongering and leaves grienspace the task of accepting or refuting your evidence. Had grienspace left off the if-then construction, I would have also reminded him of the board etiquette. (Claiming that it is widely discussed in some anonymous fora to which you cannot even provide a link does not, however, provide such evidence.)
You appear to have more context to this article and the person who wrote than you have provided. Care to share them? From your previous comments, I was under the impression that this was coming from a relatively mainstream news source in the UK.
A) What is your evidence for this?
B) Yes, there is, and the fact that Lee was engaged in prostitution is one of the things that makes me less likely to accept his assertation that he was emotionally prepared for a sex life. On the other hand, the article itself does seem to be fairly strongly anti-child prostitution, even if it is arguably pro-child sex. Regardless, I don’t really see how this rebuts anything I said in the portion of my post you quoted.
No, that was not what was being argued. Unless I’m very much off my game, here, the argument being put forward was that this behavior was allowed in the schools because society as a whole did not deem to damaging enough to intervene. It’s not a matter of what a pack of school kids thought acceptable, but what the school administrations thought acceptable, and allowed under their watch.
Of course, I’m hardly an expert on the English public school system, so I don’t know too much about the historical accuracy of that argument. Judging by your other posts in this thread, though, it doesn’t appear that that would be too much of a problem for you. However, even if Mr2001 is incorrect in his characterization of the English public school system in years past, the argument that he is advancing (specifically, the dificulties in applying current morality to historical societies) still has merit.
Well, yes, but the idea that blacks were a lower form of life was very widespread. When your entire society is saying, “It’s okay to treat these people as subhuman,” it takes a particularly strong personality not to internalize that idea. In situations like that, those that can rise above their societies preconceptions are to be lauded, but those who cannot are not necessarily to be vilified.
I should point out that I don’t know a thing about the history of English schools (or Lewis Carroll’s interest in children and how it was viewed at the time) other than what Studs Murphy has mentioned in this thread. I’m making the same assumption you are: that this behavior was generally tolerated by society as a whole, not just by the boys who were part of it. If that’s incorrect, I’ll have to withdraw some of my comments.
The thing about historical personalities is that they’re historical, ie. in the past, usually dead. We can’t start an investigation, or hire someone to spy on them to see if they really were pedophiles. Sure, some figures may have hard evidence against them. But how do we know who’s been falsely accused? And since we’re talking about famous people, it’s quite likely many people have tried to disparage them, either in their own time or afterwards. In fact, a determined person could find dirt on just about anyone famous.
The other problem is how does condemning these figures really help? Pedophiles are notorious for their persistence and non-rehabilitation. It seems like taking away a possible “role model” is peanuts compared to their own sexual drive. I’m not saying don’t condemn confirmed pedophiles, but for the iffy cases, the effort, risk, and uncertainty don’t seem worth it.
are we reading different articles? Peter Tatchell is a leading member of Outrage, who in the article clearly states that they support the decriminilisation of sexual contacts between youngters that are separated by less that 3 years of age. Nothing more! Incidently that is precisely the legal case now in many US states for heterosexual contacts and is IMHO quite sensible.
I’ve learned to separate the actions and to an extent opinions of artist from their work.
Of course i may be biased because i love Dostoevsky and there is a possibility that he would have to be thrown out long these to guys. Although what Turgenev said has never been proven or even suggested by any one else.
