Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DDO Should Not be a Platform for Filth

YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In several other threads, I've tried to appeal to the our community's common decency, and I want to be sure that as many people as possible see what I'm saying so that there is as little room for confusion as possible. Some objections have been raised, many of them valid, and I want to address them here and now to dispel any potentiality that what I've argued for might be misunderstood.

There are those who would argue that precluding obscene things (if anyone has failed to comprehend this by now, I'm only talking about pedophilia, beastiality or incest) isn't a good idea because doing so risks some degree of arbitrariness in enfacement. The argument reduces to "because there could be an instance where someone who was not advocating for obscenity might be banned if we as a community agree that advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest is unacceptable, we should allow DDO to be used as a platform to discuss pedophilia, beastiality or incest."

Consider something that is, perhaps, less controversial: murder. We all agree that murder is a universally bad thing. Intentionally and unjustifiably killing another person isn't good. But, there remains a possibility that someone, might, in some instance, be falsely accused of and charged with murder. Such a person might even be sentenced to death, in an instance of judicial miscarriage. I think that in such a case, we can all agree that in such an instance, the criminal justice system would have failed. Even still, that is not a reason to make murder legal.

That a law might potentially not be properly enforced is an issue with enforcement and not with the merits of any given law. The same principle applies to rules governing what is permissible to post on DDO. Not allowing DDO to be used as a platform for advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest does not mean that the free exchange of ideas on this site has meaningfully suffered. Even if what I'm saying does amount to a very specific kind of censorship in a very specific case (whenever someone advocates for pedophilia, beastiality or incest, i.e. something obscene), that doesn't mean that the costs of that censorship outweigh the benefits of pedophilia, beastiality or incest not being advocated for on this site.

The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Failing to oppose DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest is an indication that one accepts advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest to be acceptable within the context of this community. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote pedophilia. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote having sex with one's kin. I furthermore don't think any of us want to hear about one man's deviant fantasies of human animal sexual contact.

There might be a place on the internet for people who want to advocate for those things, but whether there is or is not -DDO is not that place, nor should it become the place. To refuse to quash this now is to indicate to any onlooker who may be searching the web to find a community where they belong that DDO might just be the place for them. I don't want that. And even despite our legitimate aversion to censorship, I don't think any of us want that either.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go. There are whiny people who want to complain about how mean I am, and that is their right. But it is our responsibility as a community to not let this place become a platform to advocate for beastiality, incest or pedophilia.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:11:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

To be fair, unless I've missed them, I don't think there's recently been a lot of threads calling for those things?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:14:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense, because no one is calling for what you're arguing against.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:16:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:14:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense, because no one is calling for what you're arguing against.

You're arguing that discussion of a subject should be banned. If you're changing your mind, fine, but my point is that given the libertarian attitude this site takes towards moderation, what you want to get done won't get done.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:16:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:14:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense, because no one is calling for what you're arguing against.

You're arguing that discussion of a subject should be banned. If you're changing your mind, fine, but my point is that given the libertarian attitude this site takes towards moderation, what you want to get done won't get done.

It's not that I'm changing my mind, so much as it is that you aren't talking about anything that even remotely connects to what's being advocated for in any of my threads.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:17:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:16:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:14:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense, because no one is calling for what you're arguing against.

You're arguing that discussion of a subject should be banned. If you're changing your mind, fine, but my point is that given the libertarian attitude this site takes towards moderation, what you want to get done won't get done.

It's not that I'm changing my mind, so much as it is that you aren't talking about anything that even remotely connects to what's being advocated for in any of my threads.

Just so we are clear (so I can dig up the necessary posts), you are saying that you have never advocated for a subject of conversation being banned.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:18:51 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:17:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:16:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:14:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense, because no one is calling for what you're arguing against.

You're arguing that discussion of a subject should be banned. If you're changing your mind, fine, but my point is that given the libertarian attitude this site takes towards moderation, what you want to get done won't get done.

It's not that I'm changing my mind, so much as it is that you aren't talking about anything that even remotely connects to what's being advocated for in any of my threads.

Just so we are clear (so I can dig up the necessary posts), you are saying that you have never advocated for a subject of conversation being banned.

I have argued only that advocacy of three specific things not be permissible on DDO. Seriously, you should read before you respond to things.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:33:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Right, now that we've got that down:

http://www.debate.org..., Post 1:

Furthermore, to remove content about very specific topics (beastiality, incest and pedophilia, as I have argued in another thread) does not mean that anything other than discussions about those specific topics will be removed. The threshold of our communal aversion to censorship is not weakened by removing content about beastiality, incest and pedophilia.

No specification of advocacy being the cause for concern.

http://www.debate.org..., Post 32:

I said that this is not the place to be discussing those topics.

Again, no specification of advocacy--you said, as a blanket statement, "this is not the place to be discussing those topics."

http://www.debate.org..., Post 31:

I'm not saying that all discussion of obscene subjects is obscene. I'm saying that discussion about that which is obscene (pedophilia, beastiality or incest) is not acceptable for this site.

Again, no distinction between advocacy and academic discussions, nor did you say then that you didn't actually want to ban such discussions.

Perhaps you poorly expressed yourself, but given that, is it any surprise at all that I drew the conclusion I did?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:33:26 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Right, now that we've got that down:

http://www.debate.org..., Post 1:

Furthermore, to remove content about very specific topics (beastiality, incest and pedophilia, as I have argued in another thread) does not mean that anything other than discussions about those specific topics will be removed. The threshold of our communal aversion to censorship is not weakened by removing content about beastiality, incest and pedophilia.

No specification of advocacy being the cause for concern.

http://www.debate.org..., Post 32:

I said that this is not the place to be discussing those topics.

Again, no specification of advocacy--you said, as a blanket statement, "this is not the place to be discussing those topics."

http://www.debate.org..., Post 31:

I'm not saying that all discussion of obscene subjects is obscene. I'm saying that discussion about that which is obscene (pedophilia, beastiality or incest) is not acceptable for this site.

Again, no distinction between advocacy and academic discussions, nor did you say then that you didn't actually want to ban such discussions.



Perhaps you poorly expressed yourself, but given that, is it any surprise at all that I drew the conclusion I did?

I mean, you can pull quotes out of context to whatever extent you like... realize that this is the thick and thin of everything I've said:

The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

The fact that you want to make these unreasonably bold conclusions, devoid of any actual basis, tells me that you didn't read... you just read the title and reacted. I mean, I know I can be verbose... but you're not even responding to what I've said. You're talking about some impression that has no basis in reality.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:39:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:36:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:33:26 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Right, now that we've got that down:

http://www.debate.org..., Post 1:

Furthermore, to remove content about very specific topics (beastiality, incest and pedophilia, as I have argued in another thread) does not mean that anything other than discussions about those specific topics will be removed. The threshold of our communal aversion to censorship is not weakened by removing content about beastiality, incest and pedophilia.

No specification of advocacy being the cause for concern.

http://www.debate.org..., Post 32:

I said that this is not the place to be discussing those topics.

Again, no specification of advocacy--you said, as a blanket statement, "this is not the place to be discussing those topics."

http://www.debate.org..., Post 31:

I'm not saying that all discussion of obscene subjects is obscene. I'm saying that discussion about that which is obscene (pedophilia, beastiality or incest) is not acceptable for this site.

Again, no distinction between advocacy and academic discussions, nor did you say then that you didn't actually want to ban such discussions.



Perhaps you poorly expressed yourself, but given that, is it any surprise at all that I drew the conclusion I did?

I mean, you can pull quotes out of context to whatever extent you like... realize that this is the thick and thin of everything I've said:

The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

The fact that you want to make these unreasonably bold conclusions, devoid of any actual basis, tells me that you didn't read... you just read the title and reacted. I mean, I know I can be verbose... but you're not even responding to what I've said. You're talking about some impression that has no basis in reality.

You're welcome to think that. However, I read what you said, I considered it, and I rejected it. Either own up to your own errors and admit that yes, you screwed up; or ignore them, I care not.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:11:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

To be fair, unless I've missed them, I don't think there's recently been a lot of threads calling for those things?

Recently, not really, but honestly given that there's never been any kind of action taken against them whatsoever, and given that a lot of stuff that is just as stupid and offensive and ethically wrong regularly gets posted (though it's often better buried), it does make me wonder.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:39:52 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:11:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

To be fair, unless I've missed them, I don't think there's recently been a lot of threads calling for those things?

Recently, not really, but honestly given that there's never been any kind of action taken against them whatsoever, and given that a lot of stuff that is just as stupid and offensive and ethically wrong regularly gets posted (though it's often better buried), it does make me wonder.

Wonder what? That some members actually might take the time to read something before responding to it?
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:17:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:39:52 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:11:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:07:28 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:12:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:02:25 PM, imabench wrote:
YYW you may have a problem.... This is like the 5th one of these threads youve made now

No, it's like the third. And I'm not going to let this one go.

Then you'll lose. You'll lose because, barring a major change in moderator policy, a site that doesn't ban people for advocating that entire groups of people should be murdered en mass is not going to ban discussion of a subject.

Why not threads extorting us to not let this place become a haven for bigots, for people who would advocate for another Holocaust? Why not threads calling for us to resist Debate.Org being used as a platform to support the mass branding of atheists?

To be fair, unless I've missed them, I don't think there's recently been a lot of threads calling for those things?

Recently, not really, but honestly given that there's never been any kind of action taken against them whatsoever, and given that a lot of stuff that is just as stupid and offensive and ethically wrong regularly gets posted (though it's often better buried), it does make me wonder.

Well, things get posted from time to time that slip through the proverbial cracks. I do think, though, that there at least appears to be an uptick in the sort of thing YYW is objecting to--and I do not see that as a good thing. I think it's that uptick that's causing the objection. Sort of like if once in a blue moon somebody's dog craps on the public lawn, folks're unlikely to do much, but if there's a new one every day, there might be some complaints to the city council.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:33:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM, YYW wrote:
In several other threads, I've tried to appeal to the our community's common decency, and I want to be sure that as many people as possible see what I'm saying so that there is as little room for confusion as possible. Some objections have been raised, many of them valid, and I want to address them here and now to dispel any potentiality that what I've argued for might be misunderstood.

There are those who would argue that precluding obscene things (if anyone has failed to comprehend this by now, I'm only talking about pedophilia, beastiality or incest) isn't a good idea because doing so risks some degree of arbitrariness in enfacement. The argument reduces to "because there could be an instance where someone who was not advocating for obscenity might be banned if we as a community agree that advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest is unacceptable, we should allow DDO to be used as a platform to discuss pedophilia, beastiality or incest."

Consider something that is, perhaps, less controversial: murder. We all agree that murder is a universally bad thing. Intentionally and unjustifiably killing another person isn't good. But, there remains a possibility that someone, might, in some instance, be falsely accused of and charged with murder. Such a person might even be sentenced to death, in an instance of judicial miscarriage. I think that in such a case, we can all agree that in such an instance, the criminal justice system would have failed. Even still, that is not a reason to make murder legal.

That a law might potentially not be properly enforced is an issue with enforcement and not with the merits of any given law. The same principle applies to rules governing what is permissible to post on DDO. Not allowing DDO to be used as a platform for advocating for pedophilia, beastiality or incest does not mean that the free exchange of ideas on this site has meaningfully suffered. Even if what I'm saying does amount to a very specific kind of censorship in a very specific case (whenever someone advocates for pedophilia, beastiality or incest, i.e. something obscene), that doesn't mean that the costs of that censorship outweigh the benefits of pedophilia, beastiality or incest not being advocated for on this site.

The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Failing to oppose DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest is an indication that one accepts advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest to be acceptable within the context of this community. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote pedophilia. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote having sex with one's kin. I furthermore don't think any of us want to hear about one man's deviant fantasies of human animal sexual contact.

There might be a place on the internet for people who want to advocate for those things, but whether there is or is not -DDO is not that place, nor should it become the place. To refuse to quash this now is to indicate to any onlooker who may be searching the web to find a community where they belong that DDO might just be the place for them. I don't want that. And even despite our legitimate aversion to censorship, I don't think any of us want that either.

This is how sites become circle jerks [like r/atheism on Reddit]. The progressive marginalization of all viewpoints that are so different than yours that you find them annoying or offensive. If I find it offensive that people advocate indoctrinating their children about magical sky wizards who will burn us with fire for all eternity if we do bad things, can I get them kicked off the site too? There's no brightline about what can be excluded under your standard. The standard is tyranny of the majority opinion.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:33:26 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM, YYW wrote:
The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Failing to oppose DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest is an indication that one accepts advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest to be acceptable within the context of this community. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote pedophilia. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote having sex with one's kin. I furthermore don't think any of us want to hear about one man's deviant fantasies of human animal sexual contact.

There might be a place on the internet for people who want to advocate for those things, but whether there is or is not -DDO is not that place, nor should it become the place. To refuse to quash this now is to indicate to any onlooker who may be searching the web to find a community where they belong that DDO might just be the place for them. I don't want that. And even despite our legitimate aversion to censorship, I don't think any of us want that either.

This is how sites become circle jerks [like r/atheism on Reddit]. The progressive marginalization of all viewpoints that are so different than yours that you find them annoying or offensive. If I find it offensive that people advocate indoctrinating their children about magical sky wizards who will burn us with fire for all eternity if we do bad things, can I get them kicked off the site too? There's no brightline about what can be excluded under your standard. The standard is tyranny of the majority opinion.

There is no progressive marginalization of viewpoints when we're only talking about precluding discussion of three specific subjects. There is no one who is saying that one person's finding something offensive is sufficient grounds for the thing found to be offensive's being banned. There is similarly no validity to your notion that what I'm arguing for here is arbitrary, or that what's permissible rests solely in majority opinion.

You can make tangential rebuttals to whatever extent you like, but, again, you're not addressing the thing being actually proposed because you're magnifying the scope of the criterion for "banning" that I've proposed to be far broader than anything I've proposed, and then only said "hey, this could be arbitrarily extended into other things."
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:46:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:39:32 AM, YYW wrote:

You can make tangential rebuttals to whatever extent you like, but, again, you're not addressing the thing being actually proposed because you're magnifying the scope of the criterion for "banning" that I've proposed to be far broader than anything I've proposed, and then only said "hey, this could be arbitrarily extended into other things."

You pick the 3 most fringe groups you can find and want their viewpoints silenced. The categories are still arbitrary. They are the three that you happened to name in the OP. Is the standard of what gets banned "things YYW doesn't like and complains about until they are removed"? Why those specific 3? Any reason other than you saw them recently and don't like them? I neither saw the posts nor have you given me a reason to care about the content of those posts. So you don't have my support on this. If ADreamofLiberty made every single thread on the society page about bestiality (so it took up the entire front page of the forum) that might be a problem. But that's because making multiple threads that have to do with the same exact thing should be grounds for removal (forum spamming). Someone has done something like that very recently. Hmm. But I can't seem to remember who. Can someone help me out?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:48:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM, YYW wrote:
We all agree that murder is a universally bad thing.

Not necessarily. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person; suicide is deemed unlawful in many places in the USA, which makes it murder, yet many people here do not agree that this particular form of murder is "a universally bad thing."
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:39:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:33:26 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM, YYW wrote:
The implication that you all ought to realize is that to oppose this is to say that you are ok with pedophilia, beastiality or incest being advocated for on this site. I categorically am not. I would hope that even those who don't like me (and I know there are a few) would have the presence of mind and fortitude of character to see past their incredulity and do what is in this community's best interest. This is a very limited proposal, to address a very specific problem -and nothing more. Only advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest becomes impermissible for discussion on this site. That is all.

And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Failing to oppose DDO's being used as a platform for advocating pedophilia, beastiality or incest is an indication that one accepts advocacy for pedophilia, beastiality or incest to be acceptable within the context of this community. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote pedophilia. I don't think any of us want the kind of people here who would actively promote having sex with one's kin. I furthermore don't think any of us want to hear about one man's deviant fantasies of human animal sexual contact.

There might be a place on the internet for people who want to advocate for those things, but whether there is or is not -DDO is not that place, nor should it become the place. To refuse to quash this now is to indicate to any onlooker who may be searching the web to find a community where they belong that DDO might just be the place for them. I don't want that. And even despite our legitimate aversion to censorship, I don't think any of us want that either.

This is how sites become circle jerks [like r/atheism on Reddit]. The progressive marginalization of all viewpoints that are so different than yours that you find them annoying or offensive. If I find it offensive that people advocate indoctrinating their children about magical sky wizards who will burn us with fire for all eternity if we do bad things, can I get them kicked off the site too? There's no brightline about what can be excluded under your standard. The standard is tyranny of the majority opinion.

There is no progressive marginalization of viewpoints when we're only talking about precluding discussion of three specific subjects. There is no one who is saying that one person's finding something offensive is sufficient grounds for the thing found to be offensive's being banned. There is similarly no validity to your notion that what I'm arguing for here is arbitrary, or that what's permissible rests solely in majority opinion.

You can make tangential rebuttals to whatever extent you like, but, again, you're not addressing the thing being actually proposed because you're magnifying the scope of the criterion for "banning" that I've proposed to be far broader than anything I've proposed, and then only said "hey, this could be arbitrarily extended into other things."

I think it would behoove you, though, to point out why your 3 things are different than other things that are or might be objectionable--because not doing so makes it seem like there is no philosophical difference, which would mean the case could be extended; that you're only advocating 3 things nowis irrelevant, as fundamentally you are appealing to a philosophical justification.

The question is, can that philosophical justification be arbitrarily extended? I don't think so, but I think it might help if you explicated that.

Personally, I see a line between "discussion of a subject" and "advocacy for a subject". In most "normal" cases we can honey badger the distinction--but I would agree that there are certain subjects that, for various reasons, we should be more careful. Your 3 (and a few others that I can trivially think of) would be things that I think there should be a bright line between.

I further think that while I'm generally on the non-prohibiting side of most speech as a philosophical position, that there are circumstances which trouble me, and there are times when even I am in favor of prohibition.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:54:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:48:30 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:00:35 PM, YYW wrote:
We all agree that murder is a universally bad thing.

Not necessarily. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person; suicide is deemed unlawful in many places in the USA, which makes it murder, yet many people here do not agree that this particular form of murder is "a universally bad thing."

Murder can also be defined as "the unlawful killing of one person by another"--in which case suicide would not meet that definition. Assisted suicide would, though, which might still suffice for the purposes of the point you're making.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:02:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:46:13 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:39:32 AM, YYW wrote:

You can make tangential rebuttals to whatever extent you like, but, again, you're not addressing the thing being actually proposed because you're magnifying the scope of the criterion for "banning" that I've proposed to be far broader than anything I've proposed, and then only said "hey, this could be arbitrarily extended into other things."

You pick the 3 most fringe groups you can find and want their viewpoints silenced. The categories are still arbitrary. They are the three that you happened to name in the OP. Is the standard of what gets banned "things YYW doesn't like and complains about until they are removed"? Why those specific 3? Any reason other than you saw them recently and don't like them? I neither saw the posts nor have you given me a reason to care about the content of those posts. So you don't have my support on this. If ADreamofLiberty made every single thread on the society page about bestiality (so it took up the entire front page of the forum) that might be a problem.

You're saying that I'm being arbitrary because I'm being arbitrary, and the counter to arbitrariness is not to beg the question. But, that aside, I have assumed that, for the duration of the time that I've been posting, that the "badness" of beastiality, pedophilia and incest aren't really something that's up for debate. I guess I'll just have to explain why beastiality, pedophilia and incest are bad... unless the fact that I'm only saying that they shouldn't be discussed in this particular place was actually the subject of conversation, which it is.

Reframing this as something that has to do with some broad kind of censorship or that deals with the philosophical grounding of why beastiality, pedophilia and incest are bad is less relevant here because I'm only saying that in THIS specific place, THOSE things shouldn't be advocated for.

But that's because making multiple threads that have to do with the same exact thing should be grounds for removal (forum spamming). Someone has done something like that very recently. Hmm. But I can't seem to remember who. Can someone help me out?

I think you meant that as a joke, but I really can't tell. Very poor execution if it was a joke, and really disappointing if you weren't. Poor execution because it's just not funny, disappointing because you're making an irrelevant point while distracting from a more significant issue. But again, I'll assume you were just joking...
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:08:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 1:02:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:46:13 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/5/2014 12:39:32 AM, YYW wrote:


Reframing this as something that has to do with some broad kind of censorship or that deals with the philosophical grounding of why beastiality, pedophilia and incest are bad is less relevant here because I'm only saying that in THIS specific place, THOSE things shouldn't be advocated for.

From Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting":

Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.

But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man f*&^ing a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her c%$t, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.

How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.

Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.

Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "

The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition " less so in the East " we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights " rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals " maintains this separation.

On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do " or mammals, anyway " and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.

Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:09:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.

At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

Your move?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:10:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Will you censor your own thread now that it contains an advocacy for bestiality in it?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:10:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bluesteel, you're not really proving a point so much as you're acting like a jackass -and you know you're acting like a jackass.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 1:20:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 1:10:25 AM, YYW wrote:
Bluesteel, you're not really proving a point so much as you're acting like a jackass -and you know you're acting like a jackass.

But an adorable jackass????

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)