What subjects should be taboo on a civilized forum?

[AnnEsthesia]

I was thinking about this, what with our recent run in with a sick pedophile.

Clearly pro-pedophilia, -child abuse and -rape would get you shut down pretty quick.

But are there other subjects?

No flaming please. I am just curious what we are all thinking.

[preservanation]

Murder for political gain comes to mind.
Censorship for political gain comes to mind.
Threat of violence for political gain.
Destruction of reputation and family for political gain...
There's a lot.
But, lucky for all who disagree...
I'm not King.
If I were you would be happy to be on my "good" list
Ask me what being on my "good" list would entail.

[Alonzo]

Honestly, and it may be the answer you want, but it's whatever affects the site to the point that normal debate is seriously hindered. The forum and its organization helps to attract members, but it is also shaped by its members. Just as its members can improve it they can also ruin it.

Personally I can deal with a lot, and I can deal with a pedophile. As I explained in the thread I saw that man as someone with a psychological problem in addition to the sexual one, so maybe that changes my reaction. I feel more pity than anger. I feel anger if he's advocating doing what he considers harmful to people, because in that case he knows he's harming people. But because he didn't seem to be emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand that I felt pity instead. It's like a sick overgrown child who doesn't understand the risk to society he presents.

The outrage from me comes during times where someone advocates harming others knowingly but not caring or intentionally.

So, again, whatever cannot be discussed without causing a significant disturbance is out of bounds in my mind. Pedophilia, blatantly racist topics, and direct person attacks are what I can think of off the top of my head.

[preservanation]

It's like a sick overgrown child who doesn't understand the risk to society he presents. What aboult the victim, family and extended family?
No one would ever be the same.
Society can absorb the cost, individuals are the ones you should be more conserned about.

[Alonzo]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't referring to society in place of individuals, I used it to refer everyone.

It's like saying a serial killer is a risk to society, that doesn't mean that society itself, not the individuals, are what is being harmed. It means that everyone is at risk.

[tony mitra]

I might help, Ann, if we could define what is "Civilized Forum", to answer the qeustion. Besides, there might be some rules already applicable, federal rules, that define what is acceptable or not.

There might be another way. Democracies define what laws they like to impose and what they'd amend, time to time. Following that time proven method, one could go democratic, and decide that the forum users decide by simple majorty (or two thirds?) of objections against no objections to decide what is ok and what is not? I know it can be messy, but such is soceity and democracy. Just my thought.

Cheers.
:)

[preservanation]

AOC on this nation is not based on personal freedom.
Every psychologist agree that there is a psychological element to sex before a certain age (whatever that is) the detrimental ramifications are documented and horrific.
And I agree with Zo that it is a detriment to society as well.
The synapse are not firing at that age, just as a young child will run around repeating the same phrase over and over, they and not completely centient.
They are "developing".
To intrude on that development with a sexual encounter can never be measured until it's too late.

[micfranklin]

I saw the other threads in FP about the child molesting dude and I'm sorry but I just have absolutely no tolerance or sympathy for pedophiles, sexual predators, or child molestors. Just from watching the news too many kids who have family are either dead or missing because some sick bastard thought it was okay to live out their idea of fantasies with children.

As for lowering the age of consent, 15 is the lowest I will go.

The only predators I like are the ones that have four legs and chase wildebeests.

[preservanation]

Yeah...old enough to pee, old enough for he.

[AnnEsthesia]

Tony, I consider this to be a civilized forum. We are all able to understand civility (even if we do not always choose to act civilly) and we all understand right and wrong. Labrocca and co have set forth a fairly even handed set of rules that balance free speech with the need to maintain order. However, even in a free-speech zone, some things are so uncivilized that they cannot exist in that arena. Pro-pedophilia is one of those things. I was wondering what the others would be.

[preservanation]

AOC should be determined by a state to state basis.
The American people and the parents residing in that state should be able to make that choice on their own.
I have more faith with the people than I do with you, as an individual, or as I do with Washington.
Do you want Craig or Hillary Clinton or Barney Frank making those types of decisions for you?

[PatrickHenry]

Ann, I find advocacy of torture a reprehensible position.

Those who find it acceptable are, IMO, excrement...

But, maybe that's just me.

[preservanation]

Maybe.

[AnnEsthesia]

I advocate torturing pedophiles. But then again, anyone who would hurt a child barely qualifies as 'human'.

[preservanation]

What about civilization destroying brutal totalitarian murdering, misogynist terrorists?
Nah[hr]What mock outrage.
seriously!

[AnnEsthesia]

We would just kick 'em in the balls, preservation.

[micfranklin]

I advocate torturing pedophiles. But then again, anyone who would hurt a child barely qualifies as 'human'.


I'm no fan of torturing anybody. A well-placed shot in the head and that'll be the end of them.

[preservanation]

I advocate torturing pedophiles.
[hr]OUCH!

[AnnEsthesia]

mic, while for the most part I would agree with just putting people like that down like we do dangerous dogs, I also can understand why the parents would want a few hours alone with them in a room...

[preservanation]

We would just kick 'em in the balls, preservation.
I hope you hit them both.[hr]I'm no fan of torturing anybody. A well-placed shot in the head and that'll be the end of them. and your criticism of human rights violations is...?

[AnnEsthesia]

If you mean pedophiles, if I was in charge, they would not have anything at all. Of course, lobotomies would also be on the menu.

[PatrickHenry]

Torture is depravity. Those who advocate it are no better than pedophiles.

[preservanation]

Mock outrage and fascism.
sorry.
Listen to yourselves.
PH exluded..and El, if he's listening.

[AnnEsthesia]

It is not mock outrage and if you think I would really hurt someone, you are as crazy as that pedophile. However, I do not consider them to be any sort of human and I would not feel sorry for anything that happened to them.

If that makes me a bad person, oh the fuck well. :)

[preservanation]

Double standard will bite you in the butt double if you can't make it to the safety of the Kremlin fast enough.

[AnnEsthesia]

Oh, and yes, if someone 'loved' one of my children, I would *want* to do anything and everything I could to hurt them. Wanting and doing it are two different things.

Of course, I also think that anyone who kills someone who has (proven) hurt their children, molested them, 'loved' them... it should be considered justifiable homicide and the killer should get send to counseling.

[micfranklin]

and your criticism of human rights violations is...?

What about it? Being shot in the head isn't really torture.

[AnnEsthesia]

Preservation, if I ever advocate hurting an innocent human being, it would be a double standard. Pedophiles who hurt kids are hardly innocent, let alone human beings.

[preservanation]

and your criticism of human rights violations is...?

What about it? Being shot in the head isn't really torture.

You got a point there, mic!
Too bad it's on top of your head!
Just kidding
lol[hr]
Preservation, if I ever advocate hurting an innocent human being, it would be a double standard. Pedophiles who hurt kids are hardly innocent, let alone human beings.
I can empathise,
but you were so adamant agianst the same thing you're now for the thing you espouse now.
Just pointing that out.

[Labrocca]

Honestly, and it may be the answer you want, but it's whatever affects the site to the point that normal debate is seriously hindered. The forum and its organization helps to attract members, but it is also shaped by its members. Just as its members can improve it they can also ruin it.

Personally I can deal with a lot, and I can deal with a pedophile. As I explained in the thread I saw that man as someone with a psychological problem in addition to the sexual one, so maybe that changes my reaction. I feel more pity than anger. I feel anger if he's advocating doing what he considers harmful to people, because in that case he knows he's harming people. But because he didn't seem to be emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand that I felt pity instead. It's like a sick overgrown child who doesn't understand the risk to society he presents.

The outrage from me comes during times where someone advocates harming others knowingly but not caring or intentionally.

So, again, whatever cannot be discussed without causing a significant disturbance is out of bounds in my mind. Pedophilia, blatantly racist topics, and direct person attacks are what I can think of off the top of my head.


And this is why Zo is an admin here. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I will add that basically when something makes most of the members absolutely sick to their stomachs (including me with my 4 kids) that it's beyond our ability to cope and the need to expunge is great. I personally rely on staff and members to guide this site. It was obvious that certain members needed to go. While I don't like a mob mentality to make decisions for me at times it's best to listen to your audience before they form a mob.

Our recent pedophile was making it clear he was here to discuss his sexual desires and attempt to convince others that it was natural or acceptable in some way. I wish I was a better person and could listen with open ears but my humanity took over. If I had this guy as my neighbor talking this crap the desire to kill him would probably overwhelm me. I don't say that with any happiness.

Ultimately this site is a political debate site and while many of us have some agenda it's politically based. We are not here to discuss insane notions of legalizing underage sex.

I know that I may have crossed some line banning without direct cause. Heck I still don't know how to word a rule that would ban him and yet not ban other regular members that might provide good debate. Sometimes things just need to be done and all reason be damned.

I just hope that what happened today and the past couple days is a rare exception and something like this doesn't become normal here. If maybe once a year this happened I could deal with it.

To get on topic and directly answer your question AnnE. I don't think I could say what subjects are taboo. This wasn't the first member to bring up pedophilia. I guess it boils down to presentation of the subject more than the subject itself. And Zo is right...often staff makes a decision based on what's good for the site. It was an obvious good to ban these members.

Thank you for reading.

[preservanation]

I just hope that what happened today and the past couple days is a rare exception and something like this doesn't become normal here. If maybe once a year this happened I could deal with it.If there are places for these people (and there is)[sadly], I would hope it's not here.
Respect to all and God Bless.

[AnnEsthesia]

Very well said and thank you Labrocca. You and Zo and Boogy were all very admirable in how you dealt with the problem.

As anyone reading my posts can see, I would not have the ability to be as polite and professional with a pedophile... but then it is one of my causes. I have held the hand of too many people who have been hurt by sexual predators. I have talked to far too many parents wracked with guilt over what happened to their children at the hands of someone they trusted. I have seen how slick these monsters can be and how much damage they leave in their wakes. There have been times over the last 10 years that I have cried myself to sleep at night with the horrors that occur out there in the world. Some days I look around me and just wonder how so much horror can occur in an world that can be so beautiful and full of love.

I guess the subject is just personal to me. And I guess if I was a better person I would just bow out of any threads that touch upon it... but the stubborn part of me would feel I was not giving it my all, so I stay and post and fight the filth.

[tony mitra]

Ann

I was just being hypothetical and a bit of a smart ass for the purpose of debating what should or could be acceptable for a civilized forum. Sorry if I ticked you off unintensionally.

Just a side comment though - definition of child sex has been changing over time, and is different at any given time over geographic and cultural bounds. My grandmother was married at the age of 12 ( her husband was 20), had her first miscarriage at 14 and her first son that survived at 15. A generation later, my mom got married at 21.

I am sure child marriage still takes place here and there in India, although it is illegal (I think 18 is the legal age now). Sometims these child marriages do not necessarily result in child sex, i.e. the girl goes back to her parents after the ceremony, to go back to her husbands home only after she "grows up", whatever standard they have about growing up.

If you consider some tribal regions, and in some religous groups in some communities, you'd find some strange customs present even today, including what you might consider pedophilia such as a 30 year old man having a wife that is 14 and taking her home to live, and have sex. To most of us, this is rape, and perhaps a very scary scene for the girl. But the village elders, including the parents of the girl, apparently accepts it.

Africa is another place where some strange customs still exist. Perhaps so does elsewhere. I'd like to ask Kyi Yo if she can throw some light on what was or is normal among the indigenous American tribes.

So, the point was, in a sense, how to compensate for all these differences that exists today within the law or on the borderline of law, and what existed only a short time ago.

I am not saying we should condone it, and certainly not within the western society. But elsewhere, it is like walking on egg shells.

As to when a young girl gains sexual maturity, physically and emotionally, I have no idea, since I was never a young girl, but would find it extremely distasteful if I was to meet a westrnised man that likes to have sex with a minor, and would be squirming in horror if I was invited in good faith to a tribal seremony in the Ivory Coast, to witness the rights of marriage of a child bride.

In fact, I once knew some folks that engaged in internet chats, where the girls, while presumably adult, would "pretend" to be underage girls, and engage in virtual sex with the partners. They called it age-play. Apparently, this was legal. Anyhow, I found it somewhat revolting, legal or not. I also wondered if it could in theory, encourage someone to take the extra step, and move from virtual reality, to real life.

Good topic ... I look forward to reading where it leads.

Cheers.
:)

[Labrocca]

I agree Tony and have voiced as much. Proving an age of consent is impossible. However there is basically one common denominator in all your examples. These child brides are just that...brides. With whom the man is to take care of forever.

Someone admitting there sexual preference is girls 5-10 years old imho is entirely different. That's a sexual deviancy and not cultural in nature. It's perversion.

[moses2792796]

Preservation, if I ever advocate hurting an innocent human being, it would be a double standard. Pedophiles who hurt kids are hardly innocent, let alone human beings.


God I hate humanism, nothing is a problem until it affects a human being is it?...bah!

[jafar00]

Murder for political gain comes to mind.
Censorship for political gain comes to mind.
Threat of violence for political gain.
Destruction of reputation and family for political gain...
There's a lot.
But, lucky for all who disagree...
I'm not King.
If I were you would be happy to be on my "good" list
Ask me what being on my "good" list would entail.


Looks like Bush, Cheney, Rice & Co wouldn't last 5 minutes then :clapper:

[AnnEsthesia]

Preservation, if I ever advocate hurting an innocent human being, it would be a double standard. Pedophiles who hurt kids are hardly innocent, let alone human beings.


God I hate humanism, nothing is a problem until it affects a human being is it?...bah!



Show me where I said that? I happen to be very much against a lot of the destruction that humanity does on this planet. I also am pro-abortion, -death penalty and -assisted suicide.

I do not hold humans as more important that animals or anything else on this planet. I do, however, feel that children, since they are innocent and it is our duty as parents and as society as a whole to protect them, deserve special protection and anyone who would hurt them deserves to be treated to special punishment.

Oh, and before someone starts the rant, since I do not consider a fetus a 'human being' until it is able to survive outside of the womb, then no, I do not consider that killing an innocent human being.

[underdawg]

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/341/facts.html


I watched a show on PBS yesterday called NOW about arranged child marriages that featured three countries India, Niger and Guatemala. Marriages were arranged for some children as young as 5 years old. Some of these children were forsed to have sex as young as 8 years old. What was done to these young girls by their families does not sound much better than what a pediphiles would do to these poor children.

[Deadshot]

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/341/facts.html


I watched a show on PBS yesterday called NOW about arranged child marriages that featured three countries India, Niger and Guatemala. Marriages were arranged for some children as young as 5 years old. Some of these children were forsed to have sex as young as 8 years old. What was done to these young girls by their families does not sound much better than what a pediphiles would do to these poor children.


Hence the reason that we, and most of the world, see the United States & Europe as the best places in the world for raising children. We are simply better then India, Niger, Guatemala and a whole host of other countries.

[Professor]

None. There should be no banned subjects. Everything should be okay to talk about. If we don't allow discussion about something it becomes tabboo. It doesn't go away, it just goes under. Then when it does resurface it's so much worse then it first was. By not allowing even talking about something you are making the forbidden fruit even tastier, by cutting off discussion you create ignorance.

This doesn't mean there aren't different ways to discuss these things. Intellectual discussion, frank talking and vulgar language are all very far apart. Vulgar discussion isn't appropriate for a forum.

Forums with members who are pedophiles is scary. I am a member of one where the owner was one.

[preservanation]

Murder for political gain comes to mind.
Censorship for political gain comes to mind.
Threat of violence for political gain.
Destruction of reputation and family for political gain...
There's a lot.
But, lucky for all who disagree...
I'm not King.
If I were you would be happy to be on my "good" list
Ask me what being on my "good" list would entail.


Looks like Bush, Cheney, Rice & Co wouldn't last 5 minutes then :clapper:
Bush, Cheney, Rice & Co wouldn't be on any list of mine.

You, jafar, would be on my "good" list, however.
I would see to it that your death is quick and painless.
You're welcome in advance!
:D

[underdawg]

I think you are so right Professor. If people are afraid to talk about the difficult subjects they tend to get covered up. I think that is what happened with the priests in the Catholic church. It was a subject no one in the church wanted to hear about and the problem was perpetuated and was allowed to become widespread. I know this is just a forum, but subjects and topics no matter how horrible should be able to be discussed in an intelligent and civil manner.

I am left feeling somewhat disturbed by this whole incident. Maybe I am naive, but I have this very uneasy feeling that this person hello I guess might be a ticking time bomb ready to go off. He claimed that he has not done anything yet, but he talked like someone who was prepared to start molesting children. It appeared to me that he was trying to justify his intentions in his mind and was seeking dialog prehaps to talk him out of what he was planning to do.

Imagine if this person was Jeffrey Dahmer and he had visited this site. Maybe we could have talked him out of what he was planning to do. Maybe we could have learned enough about him to have alerted the authorities. I fear than there may be a child out there that may be his first victim and maybe, just maybe we could have prevented it.

[AnnEsthesia]

Underdawg, do you honestly think that you can convince someone who has a mental illness to not follow what their illness is telling them?

If someone hears voices, will telling them the voices are lying do anything?

If someone wants to murder someone, would discussing the pros and cons of murder stop them from doing it?

By taking someone serious and giving them a platform where people are willing to take him serious only adds to his mental thought processes that tell him that what he is doing would be ok if only people would listen.

I don't care how much anyone listens, someone wanting to have sex with my daughter is NOT going to happen. Giving him a platform from which to preach his sickness does not stop him, it just allows him to solidify his beliefs that "if only society would listen and change" he and his sexual perversion would be acceptable.

Little girls and boys are not sex objects. If you want that sort of person here to discuss the subject of why should they be able to sleep with kids, I will leave.

[Alonzo]

I think you are so right Professor. If people are afraid to talk about the difficult subjects they tend to get covered up. I think that is what happened with the priests in the Catholic church. It was a subject no one in the church wanted to hear about and the problem was perpetuated and was allowed to become widespread. I know this is just a forum, but subjects and topics no matter how horrible should be able to be discussed in an intelligent and civil manner.

I am left feeling somewhat disturbed by this whole incident. Maybe I am naive, but I have this very uneasy feeling that this person hello I guess might be a ticking time bomb ready to go off. He claimed that he has not done anything yet, but he talked like someone who was prepared to start molesting children. It appeared to me that he was trying to justify his intentions in his mind and was seeking dialog prehaps to talk him out of what he was planning to do.

Imagine if this person was Jeffrey Dahmer and he had visited this site. Maybe we could have talked him out of what he was planning to do. Maybe we could have learned enough about him to have alerted the authorities. I fear than there may be a child out there that may be his first victim and maybe, just maybe we could have prevented it.


You're not going to help someone on a message board while other members are screaming at them. It won't work. Professionals who are trained to do it, and who do it in a private environment, usually fail, and this environment is much, much worse. I know someone who does work with pedophiles on occasion. Imagine having to explain to a 40 year old father that his 4 year old daughter, after dressing in a "big girl" swimsuit and strutting around like people she sees on tv, wasn't interested in sex. You and I see that as obvious, but these are often people who, after months or years of counseling, still cannot grasp that. They often think they were asking for it.

What you are saying is noble, but I simply don't think its practical. There are places where these things can be attempted, but a public message board is not one of them.

Though I'm not going to deny that, in the end, the outright attacks on pedophiles can be counterproductive. Especially in those who do try to restrain themselves as they sometimes just say "fuck it" after being condemned simply because they have desires they are trying to control. Same goes with some sex offender laws that, at least in california, are so restrictive that pedophiles who attempt to follow the terms of their release are forced to live homeless under bridges. Nothing good comes of that.

[PatrickHenry]

underdawg, I attempted to reason with maybe-not.

He wasn't listening any more than to attempt to refute my logic.

There is no sense trying to reach someone who only seeks justification for their evil thoughts.

It is probably best to include a rule that says we don't want to talk about how sex with children might be OK...

Maybe some of you remember that in the question I asked regarding an adult subforum, I posted a link to a German government group that advocated paternal sexual stimulation of female toddlers. Everyone thought it was sick, and so did I. But no one said, "Hey, that's pretty cool! I'd like to try that!"

That's the difference between discussion and advocacy.

And advocating torture should be similarly proscribed. It's sick. I don't care how many 24 episodes you have watched. It's sick...

[Alonzo]

And advocating torture should be similarly proscribed. It's sick. I don't care how many 24 episodes you have watched. It's sick...

The problem is that these are current issues in debate. It's kind of like homosexuality and black people. You can get away with comments about homosexuals that you wouldn't get away with making about black people. It's simply the time we live in. And, as a political debate site, things that may be equally disgusting to you and I have to be allowed because there's a significant population who advocates those things.

If you want to ban advocating torture then you're banning the view of a significant portion of the american public from being debated on this forum. It's not practical and, while it would be appealing to some, it would hinder the sites ability to gain members from the wide spectrum of american political opinion.

That's why, and as I said it may not be what you want to hear, that the opinion itself shouldn't be the deciding factor, the deciding factor is whether or not the opinion can be discussed without causing significant harm to the site. Clearly the pedophiles opinions could not be. But if he had come here and advocated torturing suspected terrorists, the site is perfectly capable of having the debate while continuing to function normally, without hindering the debating atmosphere in other threads and without hindering its ability to keep and attract new members.

[underdawg]

You all are probably right. I just hate the idea that this person will most likely go after a kid soon and there would be nothing we could do to stop him.

[AnnEsthesia]

He will or will not screw up a child's life, whether we allow him a place to politely debate his desires or not. Speaking as a mother and as someone who has seen what sick freaks can do to children, there is no way I could do that. Perhaps that makes me a less than wonderous person, but you know what? I really don't care. I do not have it in me to be friendly with someone who wants to have sex with a 6 year old. I just cannot and will not.

[Professor]

You all are probably right. I just hate the idea that this person will most likely go after a kid soon and there would be nothing we could do to stop him.


We couldn't have stopped him anyway. We're at a computer typing. Not in real life holding a kicking and screaming person to the floor.

[AnnEsthesia]

The only way to stop someone who does not have the capacity to see that they have a problem is to confine them and force them through professional mental help to understand it. Short of committing them, it just is not possible. Jail or an insane asylum... either way, you would have to lock them up and make them actually face and understand how destructive they are. Not many of them voluntarily seek out that help and if they do, then they are not that far gone.

Once they reach the point where they are trying to make the world change to fit them because they believe they are trying to 'help' and 'love' their victim, they are too far gone for simple talking to reach them.