LOL DAE REDDIT

[T&T]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

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?

you wanna unquote me up there if I want to delete my post at a later time?

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

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.

So even if this is true (and I don't think he was breaking the law...no legal action has been filed against him) how does it make what Gawker did wrong? Legal action could still be taken afterward if necessary

Are you saying gawker stood in the way of new child porn and/or privacy legislation?

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by T&T

you wanna unquote me up there if I want to delete my post at a later time?

no, internet is timeless and you get what you deserve

[duovamp]

What?

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

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?

If Eulogy was posting morally reprehensible stuff that affected other peoples lives (i.e. little girls) then some would argue that no, you wouldn't be a shitty person for exposing him.

Why do people ignore context

[exactlythesame]

i wasn't deliberately ignoring VA's context, i was just attempting to explain to duo why it was legal for gawker to do what they did

[reprise85]

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.

it is morally reprehensible, in this day and age, for an adult man or woman to have sexual relations with a minor (edit: i mean older teenagers) child, not because his or her body is undeveloped, but because his or her mind is naive and easily taken advantage of.

i wish pedophilia and ephebophilia were less taboo so that people could get help for their problem without having to worry about who they tell and getting help. it should absolutely be about learning to live with the attraction without harming anyone or engaging in activities including child pornography and sexual abuse

there is nothing wrong with finding and older teen attractive. but going out of your way to take or look at hidden camera shots of teens in compromising positions is a problem and unhealthy for everyone involved. it is exploitative. teens are off limits sexually for a reason. however, there is no way to know how many people have strong attraction to minors and never act on it in any way. they deserve help and not persecution. i dont know about inborn as far as nature vs nurture early in life, but either way the 'disease' is not their fault. now once they actually hurt someone they deserve what they get. if they never do, i'm sure they are miserable and they deserve sympathy.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by duovamp

What?

Yeah that's how I feel when I try to follow your logic
would you like me to clarify something

[exactlythesame]

just to clarify something:

i tend to find this sort of wild west judgment appealing, where people get what's coming to them when they're acting badly, and if the law won't do anything, well then, you have your own two hands. it just, for whatever reason, feels uncivilized to me. it is difficult to substantiate why, but i bristle at the idea that somebody could find my behavior reprehensible and out me for my poor decisions. the fact is, they could, and i probably couldn't do a damn thing about it. and that's kind of what happened here, except VA's behavior is very morally and emotionally charged for a lot of people, so opinions are highly polarized.

michael brustch shouldn't have been involved in those communities because they are potentially hurtful. he should have had the foresight to know that his involvement could have real life repercussions. he failed to act on that knowledge and instead remained involved. one could say he was asking for it.

on the other hand, gawker could have gotten the same reaction by releasing his username instead of his real name and address. it would have stopped the user, and probably ended the subreddit anyway, and all would have been okay, except this way, the man behind the screen doesn't get hurt. and i suppose that's what feels gross to me. that he was doxxed because they wanted him in pain over his actions. legal? yeah. a little overboard? yeah. but reddit is better off without this guy and the subs he modded. good riddance.

[TuralyonW3]

Is it more that they wanted him in pain, or they wanted the actions (that again were affecting real people) to stop?

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Is it more that they wanted him in pain, or they wanted the actions (that again were affecting real people) to stop?

"gawker could have gotten the same reaction by releasing his username instead of his real name and address"

same results, different action

better? maybe not. but that sort of feels like the argument for suffering during execution.

[TuralyonW3]

How would it be the same results if it was an anonymous username?

[exactlythesame]

if by result you mean strictly putting an end to the subreddit and the username. of course, he could just make another one, but he can still do that now, so

[Trotskilicious]

lets make this the rolling argument thread

[TuralyonW3]

What do you think trots

[T&T]

what if the persecutor was anonymous instead of gawker?
I think reddit would have rejoyced! har har.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by T&T

what if the persecutor was anonymous instead of gawker?
I think reddit would have rejoyced! har har.

Heh very likely

Anonymous just outed some school bully or something

[T&T]

amada todd, driven to suicide,
he wasn't a school bully but a 32 year old who blackmailed her with nude shots she mistakenly shared.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...usaolp00000009
sad story.
someone who was actually affected by a predator.

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by T&T

what if the persecutor was anonymous instead of gawker?
I think reddit would have rejoyced! har har.

but "anonymous" (at least /b/'s brand) doesn't give two shits about reddit or VA. worse things are submitted there on a daily basis. it's only when you pair that behavior with a real, live, flesh and blood human being that it becomes controversial.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

What do you think trots

i dunno what this is about i see the word reddit and i immediately disconnect

[Trotskilicious]

also the word "gawker"

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

also the word "gawker"

I don't use reddit much either

But if you skim the article at the beginning (that eulogy posted for me) and skim the thread you'll get the gist

I'd be interested in you opinion

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i dunno what this is about i see the word reddit and i immediately disconnect

>2012
>netphoria

isshygddt

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

lets make this the rolling argument thread

what's the next subject, then

[T&T]

jimmy kimmel on the gawker stalker forum. (which has been taken down)

[Shallowed]

Somehow I think you'd be looking at this slightly differently if someone had doxxed this guy by throwing his details to the lions on 4chan instead of publishing it on gawker.

(to exactlythesame)

[T&T]

onion article today
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ame...ey-afte,29933/

America Ends Love Affair With McKayla Maroney After Finding Out She’s 16
WASHINGTON—Just two months after the close of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, the nation’s love affair with gold-medal-winning gymnast McKayla Maroney came to an abrupt end Tuesday after Americans discovered she is only 16 years old. “Whoa,” 31-year-old Greg Adamko said upon learning that Maroney was born in 1995, adding that he “totally thought she was at least 19.” “I mean, it’s not like I ever—Jesus Christ, 16? Are you sure? Shit.” At press time, sources confirmed that citizens across the country were quickly deleting their Internet histories

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

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?

I've never posted or encouraged others to post surreptitiously taken shots of underage girls and women for the erotic satisfaction of perverts.

But moral relativism! Everything is ok or nothing is ok. I get it now, guys.

Seriously. Is this what the internet does to people?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by T&T

jimmy kimmel on the gawker stalker forum. (which has been taken down)

how exactly is this relevant

[Eulogy]

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.

Only if they are taking pictures of girls without their knowledge and posting them on fucking reddit. Prostitution is consensual (again, not ignoring the problems with prostitution that arise because of its illegality... it is a fundamentally different issue). People with AIDS (who know they have it) who continue to have unprotected sex with people without informing them they have AIDS should absolutely be exposed for endangering people.

holy fucking shit what is wrong with all of you

i'm not saying we need to punish them for having that attraction. and there is plenty of porn out there that is (hopefully, but fuck i can't have that conversation at the same time as this one) consensually produced by adult women who look like 15-19-year-olds.