Ah, here comes the reverse prescriptivist who’s taken it upon himself to redefine the English language to be more like Greek. It’s just one tired cliche after another. This thread could be a Hollywood movie at this point.
[QUOTE=neuroman]
No one who isn’t depraved would advocate the statutory rape of 13 year old girls by older men.
[/QUOTE]
I’m depraved on accounta I’m deprived.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
I never said that. It isn’t even implied in what I did say.
[/QUOTE]
Whatever. I’m not exchanging one-liners with you all day so you can be mysteriously obtuse. I trust my point is clear and the defensibility of it I will leave to readers other than you.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
What’s wrong with being a pedophile (or “paedophile” or “paieedophile” or however you want to spell it)?
If “philia” is a friendship or brotherly love (as opposed to eros, which is an erotic love or sexual/sensual desire), what’s so wrong about being friendly towards, or liking, children?
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I still can’t figure out why “homophobia” doesn’t mean “fear of milk.”
[QUOTE=neuroman]
Zambini is completely out of line and Jodi’s (and others) castigation of him is well merited. No one who isn’t depraved would advocate the statutory rape of 13 year old girls by older men.
Sexual abuse of children is a touchy subject, especially for those who’ve had it happen to them or those who they know. Perhaps that’s what set Denquixote and Zambini off.
The attitudes and mindsets represented by Zambini and denquixote, however, are utterly deplorable. Free speech? Fuck you for trying to invoke that, denquixote. Zambini and you are enemies of free speech. You are insidiously stupid, and it’s people like you that give power to panderers, demagogues, and dishonest politicians. You are ignorance itself.
[/QUOTE]
Well, even if you read my remarks as advocating the censorship of those who are seeking to obtain information on the actual presence of young teenage girls who are interested in making themselves available to older men on websites which is decidedly not what I said, please explain how I am empowering panderers, demagogues and dishonest politicians. If you actually read my post you will see that I am questioning why someone was warned about the content of their speech, not why someone was not censored.
As I have asked other critics of my post, is there no speech which should be censored? Is there no knowledge that the government is entitled to keep to itself?
Regardless of the answer to your entirely irrelevant question, it seems to me that we should certainly not censor ourselves on the say-so of hair-trigger morons who believe there’s an off-chance that the government might be annoyed. If the government wants to keep a secret, it is perfectly capable of doing so without the assistance of you two muppets, thankyouverymuch.
Neither of you has yet satisfactorily explained what sort of information Billdo’s question might have elicited that would be of any danger whatsoever to anyone, anywhere, be they child or donut-munching cop. So perhaps rather than wittering on about the practicalities of absolute free speech, we could get back to focusing on the utter idiocy required to conclude that Billdo’s question was in any way dangerous in the first place.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
So perhaps rather than wittering on about the practicalities of absolute free speech, we could get back to focusing on the utter idiocy required to conclude that Billdo’s question was in any way dangerous in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
The thought process, such as it is, goes like this.
Ahem.
omg cHildREN!!!1! thINk OF tEH CHiLdrEn!!1! WHy wON’t yOU THink oF teh cHILdREn!!1!11!!!
All else is labored post-hoc rationalization of the jerking knee.
I trust no further explanation will be required in the matter.
Oh, absolutely not - I was just rather hoping we could hear it from Chaser Bullitt and Miss Marple here.
All this because a moderator favored a friend.
Wow! I’m astounded.
I’d be dumbfounded but I don’t ask about little girls on the Internet.