NationStates Jolt Archive

MTAE posts a silly topic designed to get a negative reply, and then continues to troll. IMHO, it needs deleting. Thanks.

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

Why do all you liberals and some conservatives assume I am trolling? Are you so fascist and against personal freedoms that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the rights of children should be expanded? That they should have a say in which actions they choose to partake? That greater civil liberties are necessary in our society? I am a staunch advocate of liberty; therefore, I support Foley, I support Iraq, I support Bush, and I support the GOP.

Although the replies may have been anticipated to be negative, the thread was not designed simply to raise upset feeling. I can see no evidence of trolling here.

Although the replies may have been anticipated to be negative, the thread was not designed simply to raise upset feeling. I can see no evidence of trolling here.

1.
"Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls."

Fits his OP. Parading a pervert as a hero of childeren's rights is one thing, but comparing him to Rosa Parks is quite another. It's not racist, just stupid.

2.
"Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example)."

Fits the bit I bolded in his second post.

I have to agree with New Burmesia, though I will say that the proposition in the OP was an astounding flight of ... what's the word? trollage? And incredibly bad taste, too.

1.Fits his OP. Parading a pervert as a hero of childeren's rights is one thing, but comparing him to Rosa Parks is quite another. It's not racist, just stupid.

He's what you call a "pervert" because he does things which are not the socially accepted norm. The same thing applies to Rosa Parks -- she challenged what society accepted, and many people thought she was crazy or stupid or whatever for it. But did she catalyze a change that would lead to greater civil rights? Absolutely. Could Foley have done the same thing? I hope so. Children should have the right to decide to do what they want with their bodies, just like adults do. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it and can stop at any time.

Fits the bit I bolded in his second post.

I apologize. I got a bit carried away because so many people thought I was trolling and didn't give an adequate reply.

He adds to the thread by advocating pedophilia. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11822107&postcount=60

No, I may not understand it, and I may not agree with them, but I'll defend their right to do it. The same applies to sex with minors. Perverted? Maybe -- only very few people can understand it. But just because we can't understand it doesn't make it wrong; nobody's getting hurt. Both parties agree to it. It should be legal lest we let our own personal bias interfere with legal decisions.

He may as well be advocating murder. I thought that kind of thing was frowned upon.

He adds to the thread by advocating pedophilia. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11822107&postcount=60



He may as well be advocating murder. I thought that kind of thing was frowned upon.
I believe that there is also somewhat of a ban on threads about pedophilia

Of course, not a mod.

Rosa Parks didn't put children in danger...
I don't understand the logic.

He's what you call a "pervert" because he does things which are not the socially accepted norm. The same thing applies to Rosa Parks -- she challenged what society accepted, and many people thought she was crazy or stupid or whatever for it. But did she catalyze a change that would lead to greater civil rights? Absolutely. Could Foley have done the same thing? I hope so. Children should have the right to decide to do what they want with their bodies, just like adults do. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it and can stop at any time.



I apologize. I got a bit carried away because so many people thought I was trolling and didn't give an adequate reply.

Children don't know what they want, why would you let them make a decision on subjects ( of sex) they dont understand.

He may as well be advocating murder. I thought that kind of thing was frowned upon.

Is there something wrong with questioning the foundations of our legal system? If we a see a flaw in their judgment, should we not point it out? Should we instead stand idly by while such injustices remain? Or should all issues be given a free forum in which they can be discussed? Everything needs to be questioned and debated if we are to progress as a society. If we didn't question the right of whites to hold black slaves, where would we be today? It was legal at the time -- would advocating the reversal of such a law be "frowned upon"? No, because we now know such laws are wrong. Perhaps people in the future will look back at today and think the same thing.

He's what you call a "pervert" because he does things which are not the socially accepted norm. The same thing applies to Rosa Parks -- she challenged what society accepted, and many people thought she was crazy or stupid or whatever for it. But did she catalyze a change that would lead to greater civil rights? Absolutely. Could Foley have done the same thing? I hope so. Children should have the right to decide to do what they want with their bodies, just like adults do. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it and can stop at any time.



I apologize. I got a bit carried away because so many people thought I was trolling and didn't give an adequate reply.


Did you honestly come into Moderation to make a case that Rosa Parks was a pervert? And also, you KNOW that pedophilia is a prohibited topic here.

Yikes. You really might want to consider stopping while you are WAY behind.

Is there something wrong with questioning the foundations of our legal system? If we a see a flaw in their judgment, should we not point it out? Should we instead stand idly by while such injustices remain? Or should all issues be given a free forum in which they can be discussed? Everything needs to be questioned and debated if we are to progress as a society. If we didn't question the right of whites to hold black slaves, where would we be today? It was legal at the time -- would advocating the reversal of such a law be "frowned upon"? No, because we now know such laws are wrong. Perhaps people in the future will look back at today and think the same thing.

Nice speech. But child rape is a crime which you are advocating, Gallileo.

Just make it stop... please...

Nice speech. But child rape is a crime which you are advocating, Gallileo.

Back in the day, dressing "immodestly" was a crime. However, people argued against it and the law was repealed. We must never stop questioning the wisdom of the laws if we wish to progress as a society -- I have said this before. We certainly must not attempt to squash free speech when it disagrees with our concepts of what are right. We must constantly be on the lookout for denials of rights, wherever they may exist, and not turn a blind eye towards them (or worse). And your use of the word "rape" is disgusting -- I am not advocating legalizing anything that is against the child's best interests. The child should get to choose what he/she wants to do, the same way women should decide how they want to dress.

Rosa Parks didn't put children in danger...
I don't understand the logic.



Children don't know what they want, why would you let them make a decision on subjects ( of sex) they dont understand.

Is there something wrong with questioning the foundations of our legal system? If we a see a flaw in their judgment, should we not point it out? Should we instead stand idly by while such injustices remain? Or should all issues be given a free forum in which they can be discussed? Everything needs to be questioned and debated if we are to progress as a society. If we didn't question the right of whites to hold black slaves, where would we be today? It was legal at the time -- would advocating the reversal of such a law be "frowned upon"? No, because we now know such laws are wrong. Perhaps people in the future will look back at today and think the same thing.

Back in the day, dressing "immodestly" was a crime. However, people argued against it and the law was repealed. We must never stop questioning the wisdom of the laws if we wish to progress as a society -- I have said this before. We certainly must not attempt to squash free speech when it disagrees with our concepts of what are right. We must constantly be on the lookout for denials of rights, wherever they may exist, and not turn a blind eye towards them (or worse). And your use of the word "rape" is disgusting -- I am not advocating legalizing anything that is against the child's best interests. The child should get to choose what he/she wants to do, the same way women should decide how they want to dress.
Moderation isn't a place to continue any debate. The mods tend to not be too happy when that happens. I'd suggest containing it to the thread in general.

still not a mod, as always.

squash free speech when it disagrees

This is a message board hosted on privately owned servers; posting here is a priveledge, not a right, and there isn't protected freedom of speech here. Just so you know, Gallileo.

Moderation isn't a place to continue any debate.

Correct. No more responses to this thread until a mod has a chance to make a ruling. ANY response will be grounds for a warning or a forumban. Got it?


(no, don't respond that you got it.)

We certainly must not attempt to squash free speech when it disagrees with our concepts of what are right.

You are free to start your own forum / blog / soapbox and rant to your heart's content. We won't stop you. However, while here, you will follow our ruleset ... or else.

Thread closed for trolling. Also, we've got a current moratorium on paedophilia threads. Don't start another one.

Has anyone here considered the simple means of not reading/replying to threads you don't like and posably adding posters you don't like to your ignore list? Wouldn't that be simpler that running to the mods everytime someone pisses you off?

Has anyone here considered the simple means of not reading/replying to threads you don't like and posably adding posters you don't like to your ignore list? Wouldn't that be simpler that running to the mods everytime someone pisses you off?

And he would still be breaking the forum rules. I can't speak for everyone, but I rarely come to the mods unless something is particularly blatant in its breaking of the rules (posting porn, constantly trolling on a daily [or several times a day] basis, etc). It becomes much simpler to hand it to the mods and allow them to do their jobs. It also helps to clarify the rules in what is and is not trolling for other posters, myself included.

not a mod.

HWouldn't that be simpler that running to the mods everytime someone pisses you off?

For you, perhaps. However, not everyone is like you, and Max Barry set it up so they'd have an outlet too. We'd appreciate it if you'd let other people handle problems as they want to, and let us handle the moderating around here.