LOL DAE REDDIT

[TuralyonW3]

That's one aspect of my rebuttal to your inane point about gawker pursuing legal action (which again why would they because the guy wasn't doing anything illegal)

You haven't really answered why gawker outing this specific guy is worse than what he was doing.

Again, they legally outed this SPECIFIC guy for this SPECIFIC action. People acting like they destroyed all reddit anonymity (which really doesn't exist anyway)

[exactlythesame]

and eulogy's argument seems to be that "social justice" is the only kind that applies here

ok

so, because our perception only allows for a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in any given scenario, gawker must be the white knight and VA must be literally hitler

cool

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

i think he was saying that taking it to court wouldn't have done much of anything

They would do what they could. Otherwise this is how new laws get introduced.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

That's one aspect of my rebuttal to your inane point about gawker pursuing legal action (which again why would they because the guy wasn't doing anything illegal)

You haven't really answered why gawker outing this specific guy is worse than what he was doing.

Again, they legally outed this SPECIFIC guy for this SPECIFIC action. People acting like they destroyed all reddit anonymity (which really doesn't exist anyway)

It isn't worse, but two wrongs don't make a right. I don't support the death penalty for murderers either.

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

That's one aspect of my rebuttal to your inane point about gawker pursuing legal action (which again why would they because the guy wasn't doing anything illegal)

You haven't really answered why gawker outing this specific guy is worse than what he was doing.

Again, they legally outed this SPECIFIC guy for this SPECIFIC action. People acting like they destroyed all reddit anonymity (which really doesn't exist anyway)

reddit isn't really anonymous anyhow, what with usernames that are able to be attached to IPs

they destroyed his last vestiges of anonymity and people are acting like gawker is literally lord carl sagan for doing so, when really, they are nothing but a glorified perez hilton for the internet crowd

[duovamp]

If someone steals from you are you to call their employer and show their employer footage of the theft? No. You go to the police.

I recognize the court may be powerless here but that's an opportunity to fix the system where it's broken, not leave the system to enforce your own subjective justice. That's a very problematic slippery slope.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It isn't worse, but two wrongs don't make a right. I don't support the death penalty for murderers either.

I'm also anti death penalty

I still don't understand why you think gawker outing this specific guy for this specific action is a "wrong" (other than they should have taken legal action instead which doesn't make any sense?)

[exactlythesame]

but slippery slope doesn't logic, duo

[duovamp]

It doesn't make sense to take legal action?

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

but slippery slope doesn't logic, duo

It does when it's applicable which is NOT HERE

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It doesn't make sense to take legal action?

Not when it would be ineffective, obviously
And I'm sure Gawker preferred the quicker results of their action

You still haven't answered why the gawker outing of this one person for these specific actions is a "wrong"

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

it's not taking "justice" into your own hands. it's... making him pay for it socially. which is the only way we (maybe) have.

This is the argument exactly, in Gawker's favor. However:

1. "making him pay" is justice
2. "maybe"

There are more optimal avenues Gawker could've followed. That is my argument.

[T&T]

as intelligent discussion, can we give a clear definition of
pedophile: sexually preference to children (pre-puberty)
ephebohile: sexually preference to mid-to-late adolescents 15-19 years of age.

These people are ephebophiles. they're not attracted to children. sexual attraction to teens has been part of society for 1000's of years. Do i have to find a source for historical marriage ages for men and women? does anyone have any argument to this? is that attraction morally reprehensible? Acting on it is against the law though.


for those that still consider that attraction a problem, could we call these conditions (lets ******* pedophilia in there too) as a born this way condition. is that something to criminalize? to persecute with social justice? is it unreasonable to advocate treatment? Criminalizing actions only pushes them into the black market and harder to monitor. it's the similar arguments for legalizing prostitution, criminalizing AIDS carriers.... it makes for bad publicity, bad for justice.


on CBC radio recently was a show about the '71 Kingston pen riot that lasted 4 days. A group of young hard timers went into segregation and rounded up all the child molesters, pervs., and peds. About 10-12 in total. They tied them nude in a circle in the main hall and spit, pissed, yelled and beat them for 3 days. Two died.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Not when it would be ineffective, obviously
And I'm sure Gawker preferred the quicker results of their action

You still haven't answered why the gawker outing of this one person for these specific actions is a "wrong"

They took punishment into their own hands. You can't do that in society, cowboy. Dirty Harry ain't real life, punk. It feels good but that doesn't make it right to do.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

There are more optimal avenues Gawker could've followed. That is my argument.

Like what, and if you give an example please explain why it would be more optimal

[exactlythesame]

for further reading on reddit's ideas about the whole debacle (including violentacrez' side)

http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDra...ez_and_gawker/

http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDra...te_a_recap_of/

http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDra...te_a_recap_of/

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearne...v53k?context=2

http://www.reddit.com/r/pointandclic...escape/c6mjf5j (mbrutsch is VA)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/c...cus_on/c6mq3ol

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Like what, and if you give an example please explain why it would be more optimal

Call. The. Cops.

[duovamp]

Why more optimal?

See entire thread where I establish problems with subjective justice in a civilized society.

[T&T]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Again, they legally outed this SPECIFIC guy for this SPECIFIC action. People acting like they destroyed all reddit anonymity (which really doesn't exist anyway)

this I agree with. and that specific guy was awful. yet with your american freedom - let him sue his employer for firing him. :shrug:

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by T&T

as intelligent discussion, can we give a clear definition of
pedophile: sexually preference to children (pre-puberty)
ephebohile: sexually preference to mid-to-late adolescents 15-19 years of age.

These people are ephebophiles. they're not attracted to children. sexual attraction to teens has been part of society for 1000's of years. Do i have to find a source for historical marriage ages for men and women? does anyone have any argument to this? is that attraction morally reprehensible? Acting on it is against the law though.


for those that still consider that attraction a problem, could we call these conditions (lets ******* pedophilia in there too) as a born this way condition. is that something to criminalize? to persecute with social justice? is it unreasonable to advocate treatment? Criminalizing actions only pushes them into the black market and harder to monitor. it's the similar arguments for legalizing prostitution, criminalizing AIDS carriers.... it makes for bad publicity, bad for justice.


on CBC radio recently was a show about the '71 Kingston pen riot that lasted 4 days. A group of young hard timers went into segregation and rounded up all the child molesters, pervs., and peds. About 10-12 in total. They tied them nude in a circle in the main hall and spit, pissed, yelled and beat them for 3 days. Two died.

you better watch out with that sort of defending. you're now literally a pedophile

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

They took punishment into their own hands. You can't do that in society, cowboy. Dirty Harry ain't real life, punk. It feels good but that doesn't make it right to do.

Now you're talking about vigilantism. Gawker didn't do anything legally wrong

I'm really having trouble following your logic man

[duovamp]

This all boils down to it feels really good to burn this scumbag. And it does. But just because it feels good or it got results doesn't mean we can act this way as a society. At least in my opinion.

[T&T]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

for further reading on reddit's ideas about the whole debacle (including violentacrez' side)

one of those links inluded a link to this gawker article
http://gawker.com/upskirt
where they track Lindsey Lohan's "History of Nudity" starting at 14 years of age.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Call. The. Cops.

So you're saying the poster was doing something illegal that required the attention of the law? And people are defending a criminal? Now I'm really confused

[T&T]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

you better watch out with that sort of defending. you're now literally a pedophile

have I literally raped 3 babies now?

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by T&T

one of those links inluded a link to this gawker article
http://gawker.com/upskirt
where they track Lindsey Lohan's "History of Nudity" starting at 14 years of age.

thank you for actually reading the linked articles

i feel like discussion here is critically uninformed when most people only got gawker's side

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Now you're talking about vigilantism. Gawker didn't do anything legally wrong

I'm really having trouble following your logic man

It's vigilantism because Gawker took it upon themselves to punish him by directly exposing his personal life to his employer. That isn't their job in society, is it? Don't we have a legal system and a police force for that? Otherwise who will police the vigilantes? And so on?

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

So you're saying the poster was doing something illegal that required the attention of the law? And people are defending a criminal? Now I'm really confused

He might've been. If he did something illegal, or fostered illegal activity, he will be prosecuted for it following a formal investigation by professionals. If there is no law against what he did, then this is the opportunity to introduce a new one. That's how a legal system works.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's vigilantism because Gawker took it upon themselves to punish him by directly exposing his personal life to his employer. That isn't their job in society, is it? Don't we have a legal system and a police force for that? Otherwise who will police the vigilantes? And so on?

It's not their job, it was their legal choice, just like it was his legal choice topost the pics

It's not vigilantism because the law is not involved here.gawker didn't do anything illegal. And no, the police don't "expose personal lives to employers"

Was this guy breaking the law?

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's vigilantism because Gawker took it upon themselves to punish him by directly exposing his personal life to his employer. That isn't their job in society, is it? Don't we have a legal system and a police force for that? Otherwise who will police the vigilantes? And so on?

they can do whatever the fuck they want, honestly.

say eulogy really offends me by being eulogy. if i felt compelled to read all of eulogy's posts, follow him to other sites, collect all his information, contact his employers, friends, and family, and share with them what i learned about him, i wouldn't be breaking any laws. it was his words. but wouldn't that make me kind of a shitty person?