Nifty.org - Pedophilia Central?

[Kulindahr]

That simple law would violate Freedom of Speech.

No, it wouldn't. Inciting a crime is a crime. It would just be common sense, defining the writing of stories that encourage criminals as inciting.

 

[Kulindahr]

I never said "cure" until you mentioned it. You said it first, so, by definition, the ignorance would be on your part.

No wonder you don't understand morals and personal responsibility -- you're a total literalist.

 

[Level27]

The universe in which I live follows the laws of the United States; you're welcome to join.

I haven't had the chance (time) to go back and read the entire convo in which this statement took place; therefore, I probably don't completely understand the context from which it comes. However, skittles, having single-handedly read this one particular random post, I did find this statement a bit disturbing in the way it is brought up, even if I do respect the message all the same. Therefore, I only find it fitting for me to reply.

One must keep in mind that according to the law (approx.) 15 + years ago, it was illegal for a man to have (exclusively?) anal sex with another man. Depending on the jurisdiction, one could have been jailed for multiple lengthy years; and, many were! In another time period, more specifically that of a biblical one, it would be illegal to not stone a daughter to death at her dad's house if she were to be found sexually "impure" on the day of her marriage. (I don't need to ask you if you believe in this. I know intuitively that you, as a "decent" citizen of this time period, would not have 1/40th of a mind to support such a "cruel" law).

Having said that, in both scenarios, you would have either been breaking the law or supporting men who do! (or do you support the laws against these then "criminal offenders?" Hey, they were, after all, criminal offenders...of their time...)

...

Surely, one would find it easier to "follow the laws of the United States" if the ground of moral righteousness is in his/her favor?

...


I'm not distributing a carte blanche for people to break the law whenever there is a disagreement towards it. However, at the same time, I believe it should be reminded that laws are always changing, and social perceptions of what is criminal and "offensive to society" is not permanent on history's timeline. I'm sure that a (non-sarcastically) smart, intelligent guy like yourself would know that even we don't have things completely right at present and that our laws won't always in the best interest of the community it means to serve. Hey, law-makers and enforcers had it wrong about gay people during the previously few centuries that preceded this one. With that in mind, just imagine how many laws you would be breaking had all them from the various time periods remained today!

With the upmost respect, I ask you kindly to please keep these things in mind the next time you say that you "live in a world where [you're] a law follower." In fact, what I say here is not only directed to you but, to the personal extent of each individual, to everyone, including myself.

*huggles*

 

[gsdx]

I never said "cure" until you mentioned it. You said it first, so, by definition, the ignorance would be on your part.

I said 'cure', implying a future event.

You said 'relapse', implying a past event.

You are going to twist everything and anything anyone says to suit your own ends, so I'll say not more.

 

[Críostóir]

You are going to twist everything and anything anyone says to suit your own ends, so I'll say not more.

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

 

[Skittles075]

So not only are you someone who thinks it's just fine to encourage rapists and pedophiles, you delight in exploiting the law to do so. What would that combination be -- state-sanctioned sadism or something?

I'm not going to argue for sacrificing our freedom of speech. You can do so as it is obvious you do not value the Bill of Rights as much as the next American.

 

[Skittles075]

Okay, we lock them up for life, and make sure they're mixed in with the rest of the population.

You could write stories about it and drool while posting them for the next batch of sex criminals you want to inspire.

A life sentence seems a little harsh and quite expensive.

 

[Skittles075]

No, it wouldn't. Inciting a crime is a crime. It would just be common sense, defining the writing of stories that encourage criminals as inciting.

That simple law was tested and failed in the court of law. It cannot and will not hold up. Writings that "incite crime" are not illegal. Sure, the could be used to create a character profile against a defendant, but as solid evidence, not a chance in our legal system.

 

[Skittles075]

No wonder you don't understand morals and personal responsibility -- you're a total literalist.

What do I not understand about morals and personal responsibility, exactly? In a previous post, I condemned the actions of abusers and rapists.

 

[Skittles075]

I said 'cure', implying a future event.

You said 'relapse', implying a past event.

You are going to twist everything and anything anyone says to suit your own ends, so I'll say not more.

A relapse is a recurrence at a future date, not a past event. I'm not making this up, this is from both American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.

 

[Skittles075]

Surely, one would find it easier to "follow the laws of the United States" if the ground of moral righteousness is in his/her favor?

I probably should have specified the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[Críostóir]

Note to Kuli: Don't. Just don't. You know exactly what he's trying to do. Don't let him do it.

 

[Skittles075]

Note to Kuli: Don't. Just don't. You know exactly what he's trying to do. Don't let him do it.

What exactly am I trying to do? My objectives are: 1 - Argue for freedom of speech, 2 - Argue against cruel and unusual punishment, & 3 - Educate the masses in this forum who reside in the United States about the law.

 

[Skittles075]

I didn't know about Nifty until this thread was posted. I just skimmed through four stories and didn't see anything about adults molesting prepubescent children (which I presume exist as per the comments in this thread). I did however see stories about pubescent minors involved in sexual relations, which would indicate hebephilia and ephebophilia, and not necessarily pedophila.

Should they be banned? I don't know the answer to that. Thought-policing and regulating free speech are on a slippery slope. I agree with banning literature that incites hatred so I guess it's perfectly consistent with my views that we also ban literature that incites child abuse. But do stories involving minors necessarily do that? I have some serious doubts. If perverts are going to get off I'd rather them do it with make-belief minors and not real minors. Of course, we'd rather them not get off at all, but that's impossible to enforce. Even if they don't put their fantasies on paper, they still have them in their head.

I notice that society has a double-standard with violence. Murder is worse than rape and child molestation, yet murder is depicted in so many books, TV shows, video games, and movies, I can't even keep count. The other day I asked my friend's chatty little eight-year-old son what he wanted to be when he grows up and he told me he wants to be a gun tester, then went on a tirade about all the different weapons he could develop to kill people, particularly a rifle with a sword on the end that you could also stab people with, and proceeded to act out the different scenarios and places on the body where such an attack could occur. (He even mentioned how much easier it would be to kill senior citizens because they're frail!) All I asked him is what he wanted to be when he grows up. It seems he's been playing too many violent video games (he mentioned Halo) and violent movies (he mentioned zombie movies.)

If we are to accept the argument that such depictions don't incite violence, we must also accept the argument that such pervy stories don't incite perversion. I'm thinking maybe people's disgust for pedophilia and the normalization of violence has a lot to do this double-standard. Again, I don't know the solution to this, but it's food for thought.

Where is the retweet button when I need it! Thank you for bringing some logic to this thread; it was sorely needed. As far as hate literature, as much as I dislike it, I don't think it should be banned. If that can be banned, what's to stop some over zealous conservative from banning gay-friendly literature, or shows like Glee, because of "objectionable" content.

 

[Kulindahr]

What do I not understand about morals and personal responsibility, exactly? In a previous post, I condemned the actions of abusers and rapists.

But you cheer for those who encourage them.

Should they be banned? I don't know the answer to that. Thought-policing and regulating free speech are on a slippery slope. I agree with banning literature that incites hatred so I guess it's perfectly consistent with my views that we also ban literature that incites child abuse. But do stories involving minors necessarily do that? I have some serious doubts. If perverts are going to get off I'd rather them do it with make-belief minors and not real minors. Of course, we'd rather them not get off at all, but that's impossible to enforce. Even if they don't put their fantasies on paper, they still have them in their head.

I notice that society has a double-standard with violence. Murder is worse than rape and child molestation, yet murder is depicted in so many books, TV shows, video games, and movies, I can't even keep count. The other day I asked my friend's chatty little eight-year-old son what he wanted to be when he grows up and he told me he wants to be a gun tester, then went on a tirade about all the different weapons he could develop to kill people, particularly a rifle with a sword on the end that you could also stab people with, and proceeded to act out the different scenarios and places on the body where such an attack could occur. (He even mentioned how much easier it would be to kill senior citizens because they're frail!) All I asked him is what he wanted to be when he grows up. It seems he's been playing too many violent video games (he mentioned Halo) and violent movies (he mentioned zombie movies.)

If we are to accept the argument that such depictions don't incite violence, we must also accept the argument that such pervy stories don't incite perversion. I'm thinking maybe people's disgust for pedophilia and the normalization of violence has a lot to do this double-standard. Again, I don't know the solution to this, but it's food for thought.

The difference is that some stories glorify crime.

I would have no problem with a story about a child molester who in the end gets caught in the act and trashed by a furious father. See, there's this principle of law that the punishment should fit the crime -- so the punishment should inflict the same mental anguish on the perpetrator as was inflicted on the child, in such a way that it haunts the perpetrator as long as it will haunt the victim... namely, all the rest of his life.

 

[Críostóir]

What exactly am I trying to do? My objectives are: 1 - Argue for freedom of speech, 2 - Argue against cruel and unusual punishment, & 3 - Educate the masses in this forum who reside in the United States about the law.

If 1 and 2 were your goals, you'd argue more like I've been doing.

If 3 were your goal, you'd present references to the laws in question.

No, your goal is a much baser and more common one: to incite a flamewar.

 

[Telstra]

I think you guys miss understood each other in written form.

It is better to meet face to face and have a look at each others closets to see if there are any skeletons hiding somewhere ...

 

[gsdx]

I think you guys miss understood each other in written form.

No misunderstanding. The topic is 'Paedophilia Central', not the American Constitution. We're not talking legalities here. We're discussing whether or not Nifty promotes paedophilia, or, rather, caters paedophiles.

One of us, however, can't see this and insists on making it a constitutional issue rather than staying on the topic at hand.

 

[Skittles075]

If 1 and 2 were your goals, you'd argue more like I've been doing.

If 3 were your goal, you'd present references to the laws in question.

No, your goal is a much baser and more common one: to incite a flamewar.

I did post references to the four laws and three amendments this thread affects. I replied to one of your posts with links to two of the laws in the U.S.C.

 

[Skittles075]

But you cheer for those who encourage them.



The difference is that some stories glorify crime.

I would have no problem with a story about a child molester who in the end gets caught in the act and trashed by a furious father. See, there's this principle of law that the punishment should fit the crime -- so the punishment should inflict the same mental anguish on the perpetrator as was inflicted on the child, in such a way that it haunts the perpetrator as long as it will haunt the victim... namely, all the rest of his life.

Going back through this thread, I do not see an instance of cheering.

There are movies and video games, all works of art protected by the First Amendment, that glorify crime. Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto?