Text 3864, 255 rader
Skriven 2007-07-03 21:41:50 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Kommentar till text 3821 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Nipple slip
===================
Hello Björn.
03 Jul 07 14:23, you wrote to me:
JS>> And your point is?
BF> Sigh! It doesn't matter how many times I, and all the other
BF> participants living outside of the US, try to explain it. You are so
BF> stuck with what you've been fed that you will never ever even consider
BF> spending two minutes trying to see it our way.
That's a two way street Björn. I am stuck with what I think is right
while at the same time trying to consider other points of view. If you
can not see that you are either blind or have selective vision.
How many times have I stressed that things be fair for all concerned?
How many times have I stressed that the treatment of users be fair
and impartial?
How many times have I stated that my personal opinion is no more or
less important than anyone else's?
I have never said that the way *I* see things is the only way. YOU
on the other hand have said just that very thing in this echo. Adding
that if we (The users) don't like it your way, then tough.
Who is the real person here with the narrow view of things? You state
things as you see them and expect others to abide by your definitions. While
not caring or at least not realizing that there are other views. In this
case the definition of profanity and vulgar language.
JS>> If swearing and profanity are to be allowed in this echo
BF> No it is not!
Then why do you continue to suggest that it is?
BF> The problem is with you guys that refuse to understand that what is
BF> swearing and profanity in your narrow neck of the woods, does not
BF> necessarily mean that it is in the rest of the world, were 95% of
BF> the Earth population lives.
Björn, were talking Fidonet here. We are talking about 5000+ nodes
and dropping. What is important is that the rules of this echo be fair
for all. I thought that the rule "No vulgar language. This includes, but
is not limited to, flames and profanities" was quite clear. In the years
that I have been in Fidonet and the many echos that I have participated
in and even moderated. Unless otherwise allowed the use of the "F" word
was not permitted and was considered profane. That does not sound like a
narrow view to me Björn. You are certainly right in that the use of the
"F" may not be as offensive in some countries as it is in others. My
question is that if that type of language if found offensive by some and
it's use in not necessary to effectively communicate. Then why permit it?
Your continued use of that type of language suggests that it and swearing
in general are permited. Do you swear as moderator? Not that I have seen.
But then your don't have to. Users often times see who is swearing and
not what hat they might have on. The point being that if the person who
is also the moderator swears then it is assumed that it is ok to do so.
And if the person who is also the moderator swears but chastizes others
for using the same language. That will show the users just how meaningless
what the moderator has to say is.
JS>> This is an international echo Björn. Aren't you trying to
JS>> force your definition of what constitutes vulgarity and profanity
JS>> onto the users of this echo who are from a number of differant
JS>> countries?
BF> You still don't get it do you? *You* are the one trying to force
BF> *your* definitions upon the rest of us.
You used the terms in the rules that we are operating by Björn. You
defined the rules and chose the terms to be used in those rules. You left
it up to the users who read those rules to apply their meaning to the terms
that you used. I can't help but think that you were aware of the fact that
a given term may well mean differant things to differant peoples. If you
are going to use a term that is likely to have differant meanings in other
countries. It would seem reasable to expect you to accept the differances
of what the terms you chose to use might have. The fact that you continue
to suggest that I am trying to force anything upon you or "the rest of us"
shows me that you either miss the point or fail to understand what is being
said to you.
BF> What *I* am saying is that what is not "forbidden" outside of the
BF> Moral Majority society of the US shall not be forbidden in this
BF> international echo.
Then you should define what IS permitted Björn. Being an international
echo there are bound to be a variety of opinions of what constitutes
profanity and vulgarity. So far you have only expressed YOUR definition
while seemingly trying to suggest that that definition is the WORLD's
definition. What I am saying is that you should REALLY consider what the
terms that you use mean to others.
Feel free to twist what I have stated to fit your own definitions.
JS>> I think it would fair to say that if you were to poll 20 differant
JS>> moderators and ask them if the use of the "F" word or the discussion
JS>> of child sex was permitted. I have no doubt that the answer would be
JS>> an emphatic NO!! You continue to post rules that suggest that such
JS>> behavior is NOT allowed. Yet you continue to post messages such as
JS>> the one I am responding to that suggest that it is. As I have stated
JS>> several times now people learn what is acceptable by reading your
JS>> posts both as moderator and as a user.
BF> US ditto, no doubt?
That would depend on the nationality of the individual moderators. I
challange you to ask around and faithfully report what the concensus really
is.
JS>> or the discussion of child sex was permitted
BF> BEEP!!!
BF> I just waited for it... You lose.
JS>> Thank goodness that the rest (I hope) of the users here have
JS>> a better sense of what is accecpable.
BF> AKA The Moral Majority, yes. I get it, no need to continue.
Not even close Björn but that isn't that suprizing. I meant all
the users here Björn from all participating countries. But of course
you already knew that.
Why the need to selectively quote Björn? I also stated in that message
that as this is an international echo where there are also a number of
differant moralities involved. I stated that it is not my intention to suggest
that my morals are any better or worse than anyone else's. But there needs
to be a reasonable idea of what is acceptable to all.
I noticed the way that you sometimes selectively quote to try to
suggest that what someone is saying or meaning is quite differant from what
they actually stated.
JS>> Björn, no insult intended.
BF> BS! Of course an insult was intended. The above clause sounds
BF> almost like "some of my best friends are coloured". :(
No it wasn't! But don't let the truth affect what you NEED to believe.
JS>> and even your apparent acceptance of pedophilia.
BF> Strike 2!
BF> Let me educate you about paedophilia (as opposed to pedophilia that
BF> would mean foot fetishism).
Maybe to you it does. In checking several differant sources (Some being
non-US sources) the definition is as follows:
pedúoúphilúiúa - n. The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of
engaging in sexual activity with a child or
children.
while
paedúoúphilúiúa - n. A sexual attraction to children
[syn: pedophilia]
BF> Paedophilia is the sexual deviation that makes people sexually
BF> aroused when they see naked children.
Regardless of the term used the meaning of what is meant is the same
wouldn't you agree?
BF> Compare this to people that get sexually aroused by rape and torture.
BF> Rape and torture sites can be found in the millions all over the
BF> internet, and it's not illegal to have pictures or films of that.
The differance that I see is that pedophilia involves innocent
children who are being taken advantage of and in many cases are having
their innocence taken from them by an adult. While rape and torture are
fantasies acted out by adults for adults. The same would be true for
the other tastes that some fantasies for. Again IMO there will always
be pornography. And I have somewhat grown to accept it as long as it
by adults and for adults and it is concensual. Heck, I remember buying
the Playboy's 25th aniversary edition back in the late 70's. Haven't
had the urge to buy a skin mag since. I of course just bought it for
the articles. <g>
BF> So, tell me now, what do you estimate the ratio between rape (the
BF> ordinary one) and child abuse (what usually paedophilia is accused
BF> of)?
In doing some checking I find that convicted rape and sexual assault
offenders serving time in State prisons report that two thirds of their
victims were under the age of 18, and 58% of those or nearly 4 in 10
imprisoned violent sex offenders said their victims were aged 12 or younger.
In 90% of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the child knew the
offender. And people who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older
than the people who had committed their crimes against other adults. Some
sources suggest that one in three females and one in ten males will be sexually
molested before the age of 18. Also that some four million child molesters
reside in this country. That is why I think that we need to take steps to
protect our children.
BF> Let me get this straight: I would be the first one to advocate
BF> public flogging and forced castration to anyone abusing children.
BF> Children must be able to trust all grown-ups, that's the only way they
BF> can survive.
Good to see you say that. Whatever the punishment it should be
swift and severe. Children look to adults for love, trust, support,
and as you say need to be able to trust adults. Children are being
forced to grow up fast enough as it is without being taken advantage
of by an adult. Children need IMHO the chance to be children as long
as they can. Our children are this planet's only hope. And they must
be protected and not abused or taken advantage of.
I have to be honest with you Björn. I had my doubts about you really
meaning that you were supporting pedophilia. But you were the one that
brought the subject up in the Fidonews echo and I had to make sure of your
intentions on the matter. While it is a subject that people should concern
themselves with for the sake of our children. I will be ending this part
of the thread with this message.
BF> But having sexual fantasies, like paedophiles have, is a far cry
BF> from performing actual crimes.
It probably doesn't happen in all cases but I would think that when
the actual crime occurs it began by someone that started out by just having
fantasies about kids. Then at some point that was no longer enough and
they needed to take their fantasies to the next level.
BF> Putting paedophiles to jail for years, just because they have
BF> unacceptable sexual fantasies is probably the best example of
BF> thought crimes you can find.
I agree that people should not be procecuted for what they think. If
someone were to have a fantasy about a child and they did not act in any manner
toward any child and did not give anyone reason to believe that they
were having such fantasies. Then they should not be procecuted. But then,
who would ever know?
But when that thought starts to take physical form. As in child
pornography or other behavior such as watching, following, etc. Then they
have started to act on their fantasies and need to be stopped. Child
pornograhy is the abusing of children also and people that indulge in that
are IMHO on the path to getting physical with their fantasies.
BF> --- Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
BF> * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
Jeff
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
* Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)
|