Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I do believe in free speech you asswipe, I just don’t believe in trolling for underage girls, nor do I believe in allowing it on your website, nor do I believe in criticizing the remarks of someone who suggests that it could be taking place, solely on the basis of a prior acquaintanceship with the possible troller.
So, IOW, you only believe in free speech as long as it doesn’t make you a little oogy. I know a guy in Cuba I bet you would love to meet.
No, I said i don’t believe in censoring the critic. If you read my original post, you can discover that I said that I was confused by the standard that allows the question but does not allow the criticism of the question. IMHO this is what free speech is about, the exchanging of opinions and information. Here the request for the information was allowed but the comment on the request was chastised. You may find this fair. I don’t. And yes If you are referring to Castro I would love to meet him. I do admire him and probably your courageous relatives as well. The ones who kept silent … not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
The good news for you, you probably don’t have to worry about how old they are now. In order to eliminate any chance that a defendant can argue that he was coerced into committing a crime he would never have committed without the temptation being presented by the authorities, the feebs wait for the troll to act first.
What, they set up MySpace accounts for fake preteens who make up a list of friends, write fake bulletins, put up fake emo poetry, etc.? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Well, I never meant to say that you could make the first contact. You described a situation where you were being questioned by a pre-teen (you thought) and I said you don’t have to worry. If you are going to initiate such contact you are on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maastrict
Just 50 years ago, people with your idealistic mindset were eager to report anyone who might be a communist during the McCarthy Era
My father’s great-uncle, who managed the project to create the ENIAC, the world’s first computer, was a victim of the McCarthy nightmare after he dared to commit the horrible crime of standing up for an accused coworker in court. He lost his job and would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent.
My grandfather, then a U.S. Attorney who helped to invent Social Security (a lot of good that does us now, but that’s another question), came to his aid in court. He, too, lost his job and would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent. After his incredible service to the federal government, they saw fit to toss him aside like an empty soda cup.
Another relative from the same side of the family, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who also wrote for such shows as Mission Impossible, dared to stand up for him in court. He, too, lost his job and, you guessed it, would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent. When he had to support himself by tending bar in the ENIAC project manager’s cousin’s restaurant, serving drinks with his Oscar on the shelf behind him, he was as humiliated as he was grateful.
I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I’m not a big fan of these “I like free speech, but…” fallacies.
I don’t understand the whole exchange here, either mastricht’s comment or your response, but I do forgive you. Just for the record, so we all understand you are for unlimited free speech, including one would presume from your argument, the right to prey on young teenagers over the internet, because your relative was a victim ofthe McCarthy witchhunts? Is there any speech that you would regulate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I in no way ever said that Billdo was a pedophile
Bullshit. If you’re going to make an allegation that serious about someone–which you did–at least have the balls to admit it.
Believe me if I was of the opinion rthat he was a pedophile I would say so. I have no trouble saying that you are an asshole do I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I did think that if this person had some seriously demented purpose this has to be the lamest way ever of going about it
Do you think maybe that’s a clue?
Yes it is a clue, but not dispositive since I do not know the man and am not familiar with his thinking processes, if any. Therefore I thought it reasonable to allow criticism of same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drachillix
As someone who has been involved in PJ, there is no targeting, rule number one for playing bait is not to initiate. Not conversations, not sexual conversations, and not to request a meeting. The frightening thing is they don’t have to.
So what do they do, exactly? Set up a profile called “SexyGurl13” with blogs about how exciting it is to be with an older man? What effect do you think that has on the average older man, especially a solitary bachelor? Would you agree that a person who fantasizes about child sexual abuse would be more likely to take the “bait”, as you put it, than to actually go out and seek a real child with a real, perfectly innocent website?
This exchange speaks for itself. You said they target and the presumed expert in the field says they do not. You describe what would be a crime and seem to defend it because it is not more serious. As to whether someone might take some bait rather than search for fish, who knows and who cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
The question is stupid. The only way it could be answered factually would be to question predators who have been caught and convicted and ask them how much success they had before they were caught. And I don’t think they are going to tell you.
Really? Because I’m pretty sure this very practice is common. If anything, my understanding is that convicted and sentenced criminals tend to overstate their “conquests” (be they homicidal, larcenous, lewd, whatever) over the law to look more badass and get more respect in prison.
Please provide a citation for this reidiculous assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
If it had been a “Guest” who posted the question, what would your response have been then?
That it’s a perfectly valid academic question. It’s not our job as members of a message board to figure out who has criminal intentions and who doesn’t, nor are most of us trained to do so–especially not you, me and denquixote, I’d bet. The problem with spraying accusations around like shotgun pellets on an anonymous message board, when you don’t really know the poster’s intent, is that you can do a lot of damage to people’s reputations without doing any good for anyone. Again, what’s wrong with calling the police and/or notifying a mod if you were legitimately concerned? Is that more difficult than I thought it was?
Of course, this is America and you have the right to make that accusation. It’s just as petty and jerkish as Billdo’s question was shifty.
Your opinion which you have every right to hold and state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
As I said before, the Straight Dope will close down threads where it is apparent that someone is seeking information that could be used to facilitate illegal activity.
Do you think this might be a clue?
Is that your new mantra? ou mean they did not close it therefore it is above reproach? Good clear analytical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
The question, if answered, could provide someone ( a lurker, perhaps) with information best not divulged.
Ah yes, the dreaded “information best not divulged”. No, you’re totally correct, Kommisar. The people must be protected from the workings of their government; it would only tempt them to do evil.
What is it with you and the anti-Communist comments? Do you think that you should have a right to know everything? Is there nothing that the public should not be privy to?
