NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm appalled. This guy drove ME and a few others crazy. Advocating banging children

Case one:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

woman: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: very well, indeed....

--------------------------------------------------

Case two:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

child: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: HOLD ON HERE!!! THIS IS A CHILD!!!!!

man/child: so?

officer: YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!

man/child: why not?

officer: Because.....well...they can't give consent...THATS WHY!

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: WRONG. It harms them psychologically!

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Whatever. Your being arrested.

I think it is absolutely horrible that both you and the law assume that children are completely incapable of consenting to sexual acts. They may actually want to do it. Some over-18 year olds will be incapable of consenting. Some under-18 year olds will be capable of consenting. We're all different. Thus, I dont see the need for laws to accomodate an arbitrary age of consent. One size does not fit all.

Oh you'd be surprised by my liberalism. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the individual sovereignty of another.

Of course, because sex automatically hurts children. Every single solitary time. They never use it to experiment. They never use it out of interest. Every single time it's harming the child in the worst way. Your right.

But a 19 year old?? Oh, they're just being silly little college students experimenting. It's OK for them.

This type of law just doesn't work, though. You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready. You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority. If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No. It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it? No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.

SEX WITH CHILDREN != HARMING THEM

Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. There can be consentual sex that doesn't harm people!! SHOCK!!

Your unfounded assumption that

1) children CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!
2) sex ALWAYS hurts children
3) ALL adults are ready for sex

isn't convincing me either.

Fine, I give up. I dont want to be deleted. I guess I'm not convincing anyone that children have minds of their own.

Nice one. Because differing opinions is a cause for deletion? I guess you might as well report the 11 others who voted with the same option, too.

Here's the whole thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489731

I'm afraid that General usually has at least one paedophile on it. Unless they are saying they have actually committed a illegal offence themselves though, the Mods have never taken action against them in the past. Part of the idea of freedom of speech is hearing arguments from people with whom you disagree, no matter how unpleasant their view is.

Yes, as Philosopy points out, its perfectly ok to advocate illegal or immoral things, as long as one doesn't plan or express intent to commit them. And I'm not so sure about "immoral" things either. I'm fairly certain I could get away with saying "All Jews must be sterilized" as long as I didn't also say, "and I'm gonna use my scissors to do it."

He's not "advocating banging children" - he's questioning how people determine consent. Even if you find that sick, or even if he's only doing it to a get a rise (which I don't think he is), I can't see how that's actually a forum offence.

I'm appalled. This guy drove ME and a few others crazy. Advocating banging children
It appears that if anyone disagrees with your take on this issue, you automatically brand them a pedophile. The fact that your opinion is fixed as the only possible right answer for you does not make it so for others.

Jey is arguing a position you don't agree with. Refute it. He's not breaking site rules.

SEX WITH CHILDREN != HARMING THEM

Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. There can be consentual sex that doesn't harm people!! SHOCK!!


He says sex with children doesnt equal to harming them. Doesnt it mean that he'll be ok with sex with children?
He's not questioning the concept of "consent". He is arguing for sexual relations with children. I think this might be appropriate for a 18+ forum, as for free speech. However this is a 13+ forum. 13 year olds doesnt need to hear a man who says they can have sex with old people. Can mods reconsider this?

He says sex with children doesnt equal to harming them. Doesnt it mean that he'll be ok with sex with children?
He's not questioning the concept of "consent". He is arguing for sexual relations with children. I think this might be appropriate for a 18+ forum, as for free speech. However this is a 13+ forum. 13 year olds doesnt need to hear a man who says they can have sex with old people. Can mods reconsider this?
Unfortunately, talking about paedophilia isn't deemed unsuitable for children, or it wouldn't be on the Six O'Clock news so much.

Unfortunately, talking about paedophilia isn't deemed unsuitable for children, or it wouldn't be on the Six O'Clock news so much.

Which 13 year old watches news?

You are given the opportunity to shoot down the idea with words in a free speech arena, and you demand censorship?

Which 13 year old watches news?
Presumably precisely the same type who posts on a political forum.

Besides, it is about what is acceptable, not whether certain groups ever see that acceptability.

Which 13 year old watches news?

I did, if you must ask. As did my best friend at the time.

Regardless, Jey was trying to display that there's a double standard. He isn't advocating sex with children, he seems to be trying to address blanket statements about kids and adults. He didn't say SEX WITH CHILDREN != WRONG. He's not advocating breaking the law. Why should he be banned?

And honestly, I can't believe that someone accused Jey of being a pedophile.

I did, if you must ask. As did my best friend at the time.

Regardless, Jey was trying to display that there's a double standard. He isn't advocating sex with children, he seems to be trying to address blanket statements about kids and adults. He didn't say SEX WITH CHILDREN != WRONG. He's not advocating breaking the law. Why should he be banned?

And honestly, I can't believe that someone accused Jey of being a pedophile.

Actually, if you see the actual thread, he thinks we should be allowed to have sex with children.

I did, if you must ask. As did my best friend at the time.

Regardless, Jey was trying to display that there's a double standard. He isn't advocating sex with children, he seems to be trying to address blanket statements about kids and adults. He didn't say SEX WITH CHILDREN != WRONG. He's not advocating breaking the law. Why should he be banned?

And honestly, I can't believe that someone accused Jey of being a pedophile.

Thank you. I wasn't advocating breaking the law or having sex with children. I was attempting to address a common view that children are completely and always incapable of competent decisions and vise versa with that of adults.

And I most certainly don't appreciate being called a pedophile.

Niaman, not only is your claim libelous, but your argument is ludicrous. I sincerely hope Moderation gives you a warning for your disgusting accusations, and I also hope that they get a hearty laugh from your request to have Jey reprimanded for simply arguing a point.

It would be a sad state of affairs on these forums if someone was punished for speaking freely on an issue while not condoning illegal actions.

no the fact is having sex with children is wrong thats why the legal age is 16 for girls 18 for boys because by that time they should be mature enough to choose for themselves. those people that lack the mental ability to say no shouldnt be having sex as they are disabled and the interbreding of retards with normal people continues genetic impuritys so just dont do it its grit. and what self respecting person finds children under legal age desirable at all. and speds arent even people.
:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours::upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :AND ANYONE THAT THINKS OTHER WISE IS A FUCKHEAD AND DESERVES TO SUFFER ETTERNAL TORRMENT IN THE PITS OF HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

















Here's the whole thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489731[/QUOTE]

If I may make a request, a bit ago Tactical Grace wrote an opinion from the Mods when I was having a little spat with Dark Shadowy Nexus about this very topic. The opinion was, IIRC correctly was related from the admins and Max, perhaps it should be cleaned up a bit and added to the One Stop Shop to address why such topics are allowed in General, when they cross the line to be banned, and so on?

Just to save everyone some time.

babble/rant/flame
Anyone who thinks continuing the discussion with flames, rows of :upyours: smilies, and obnoxious shouting in the Moderation forum is a good idea? Hands? Anyone?

Take a day off, New Shipstonia. When you come back, read the rules. They're easy to find. Look up a thread or three.

If I may make a request, a bit ago Tactical Grace wrote an opinion.
The Most Glorious Hack, maybe?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10604061#post10604061

The Most Glorious Hack, maybe?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10604061#post10604061
*Doh!* Er... Hack, I mean Hack!

Sorry, TG and Hack. _/(-_-)\_

Now that I have the right Mod, could it be added in?

Anyone who thinks continuing the discussion with flames, rows of :upyours: smilies, and obnoxious shouting in the Moderation forum is a good idea? Hands? Anyone?

Take a day off, New Shipstonia. When you come back, read the rules. They're easy to find. Look up a thread or three.
SPECULATION REMOVED

As far as the issue at hand, Jey had every right to say what he said, whether you found it offensive or not. He did not say he is a pedophile nor did he encourage sexual relations with children. He challenged the status-quo opinion that sex with children is always bad, but that doesn't mean he said that sex with children is always good. There is a fine line of distinction.

And btw, I was reading a thread the other day where a poster (not like I'm telling you, OP) openly admitted that he is a pedophile. Should he be banned also?

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
It's a coincidence, and we'd rather you didn't speculate like that.

It's a coincidence, and we'd rather you didn't speculate like that.
Okay that's fine. Just getting it out there because I wasn't sure if people were allowed to have multiple accounts or not. From now on, I'll keep that speculation to myself.

Okay that's fine. Just getting it out there because I wasn't sure if people were allowed to have multiple accounts or not. From now on, I'll keep that speculation to myself.

People are allowed to have multiple accounts. Texan Hotrodders is actually a good example.

The problem is, it's really hard to tell if it's the same player operating two different accounts unless you're a Mod.

Even in my case (it being in my sig that this is a puppet of HotRodia) it gets hard to tell. There are several accounts on this forum that have claims to the effect that they are puppets of HotRodia in their sigs, but are actually not my accounts at all. (Which is the result of a joke Grueberg started, but that's another story.)

Actually, if you see the actual thread, he thinks we should be allowed to have sex with children.

Somehow, when the original post has half a dozen quotes from across the thread trying to get someone banned because he's a pedophile......somehow I have a hard time believing that such a quote actually is there. Otherwise, it would've made it onto the initial post. I'd ask you to back up your claim, but somehow it doesn't seem relevant to this thread.....so if that post does exist, TG me the link and I'll look at it. Until then, I ask that you try and get what was said and what you heard sorted out - sometimes what you hear is adding a lot of information that was never even implied simply because of a false assumption.

I believe if someone is advancing an argument that paedophilia is positive or does not harm minors who are victims of that act, there's nothing in the rules here that prevents them from having that view or expressing it as long as they don't go around talking about what they want to do to minors in graphic detail and as long as they follow the rules of debate.

If you're so repulsed by the fact that someone can think like that and you can't argue with them using standard debating tactics and rational arguments, you're probably best suited to put the paedophile on your Jolt ignore list or possibly contact the authorities and let the professionals handle the case.

The way I've seen rules laid out, people are entitled to express their opinions if they're racist, homophobic, paedophiles, etc. as long as they adhere to the site's policies. If they start flaming and/or get too graphic, that's when the Moderators come down on them from what I've seen.

If you're so repulsed by the fact that someone can think like that and you can't argue with them using standard debating tactics and rational arguments, you're probably best suited to put the paedophile on your Jolt ignore list or possibly contact the authorities and let the professionals handle the case.

I am not, have never been, nor will ever be a pedophile. I merely argued that the age of consent is not sufficient as a "one size fits all"-law. I would be extremely appreciative if I would stop being referred to as a pedophile (or "the pedophile") and do not think any of my actions here on any of these forums is anywhere near worthy of the consideration to contact authorities.

Edit: would I be out of line to seek for the locking or possibly the deletion of this thread?