LOL DAE REDDIT - Page 8

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T&T

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

oh and i deleted your post because this is not the place for creepshots overflow.

hnibos · 10-17-2012, 08:13 AM

Maybe those kids want to be sexed up. That would change everything.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

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?

...What.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

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

It's illogical for me to say that if you have a problem with someone's conduct online, it is better to escalate the matter to the proper authorities rather than invade his privacy? That is illogical?

I understand "We all got this guy in trouble because he sucks" is fine, but there is a right and wrong way to do it. People do have the right to privacy and the right to be free of harassment, even if they're awful people.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 10:06 AM

You have no right to be judge jury and executioner and start dolling out punishments for the way people are. Your job in society isn't to harass and badger and humiliate anyone.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's illogical for me to say that if you have a problem with someone's conduct online, it is better to escalate the matter to the proper authorities rather than invade his privacy? That is illogical?

I understand "We all got this guy in trouble because he sucks" is fine, but there is a right and wrong way to do it. People do have the right to privacy and the right to be free of harassment, even if they're awful people.

you do not have a right to anonymously post pictures of girls without their consent. all that happened was that his anonymity was taken away. nothing was "done" to him. no one executed him. you are completely off the rails here.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 10:11 AM

also, as has been said repeatedly, there are no proper authorities in this situation.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 10:25 AM

lines have to be drawn somewhere. and again, no one has really presented anything other than a slippery slope argument that is no more valid than gay marriage opponents saying it'll lead to men marrying dogs.

drawing the line on this side of r/creepshots and r/jailbait seems utterly reasonable to me. someone explain why it's not.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 10:31 AM

and you guys are i guess saying that the line should be drawn between what is legal and what is illegal?

i guess i understand why that's appealing. but i cannot agree with it. but if that's where you guys are coming from then i can probably bring myself to agree to disagree for the time being. sorry for all the outbursts but stuff like this really really really really bothers me a lot.

TuralyonW3 · 10-17-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

...What.

vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

I think I'm done here...not worth arguing with Duo when he can't form a reasonable argument

hnibos · 10-17-2012, 11:05 AM

I don't know why there's any argument here whatsoever. Some people are afraid of where this can go, context be damned, and some people are like, well, he's not legally in trouble but he's a pedophile and his name should be out there. As far as the people being afraid of where this can lead (slippery slope), I like to think the majority of decent people will know where to draw the line.

For example, I think most decent people will agree that supporting any Catholic institution is repugnant, but, if they're a fan of a football team representing a Catholic education institution, they probably don't deserve to lose their job and insurance over it. I'm sure they would have no sympathy towards such a person if it occured, but should they get that sort of "punishment"? Of course not. In the end, they aren't really hurting anyone. Not really, and not the same way a pedophile might (pictures without consent).

TuralyonW3 · 10-17-2012, 11:08 AM

I'm not even saying he's a pedophile....I'm just saying that what gawker did was not wrong...or at the very least certainly not any worse what he was doing

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnibos

For example, I think most decent people will agree that supporting any Catholic institution is repugnant, but, if they're a fan of a football team representing a Catholic education institution

pft you know i went there too

so if you're going this route it's way worse. i could get into an actual discussion about why i don't think it was wrong of me to attend but i don't think anyone wants that.

hnibos · 10-17-2012, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

pft you know i went there too

so if you're going this route it's way worse. i could get into an actual discussion about why i don't think it was wrong of me to attend but i don't think anyone wants that.

No one wants that and I was being sort of facetious there. The point is, as far as the slippery slope argument goes, is that it's understandable where they're coming from, but there's an obvious line that won't be crossed. I think/hope, at least.

Dead Frequency · 10-17-2012, 11:31 AM

I don't know, it sounds like no-one insofar has condoned his behavior, no-one thinks that children should be taken advantage of regardless of intent. However, if the action is deemed punishable - it should be doled out in what is considered the norm. The fact that he deleted, without report, CP on a consistent basis, in a public forum, in an effort to further his own agenda makes him no less than that dude who saw sandusky buttfucking the kid in the shower and did nothing.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you do not have a right to anonymously post pictures of girls without their consent. all that happened was that his anonymity was taken away. nothing was "done" to him. no one executed him. you are completely off the rails here.

Gawker called him at work and posted his personal and private info in a very public place. He has a bunch of dildos in his possession, which they published. That's more prejudicial info than probative.

I think they went way too far with the intent screw up this sicko's life. I don't think they have that role or right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

also, as has been said repeatedly, there are no proper authorities in this situation.

There are. They will investigate and make arrests if necessary. It isn't your position to investigate, and punish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

I think I'm done here...not worth arguing with Duo when he can't form a reasonable argument

THEY ARE PRECISELY THIS. FUCK.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 11:39 AM

Is there any evidence beyond reasonable suspicion btw?

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Is there any evidence beyond reasonable suspicion btw?

his admission to all of it?

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Gawker called him at work and posted his personal and private info in a very public place. He has a bunch of dildos in his possession, which they published. That's more prejudicial info than probative.

I think they went way too far with the intent screw up this sicko's life. I don't think they have that role or right.

There are. They will investigate and make arrests if necessary. It isn't your position to investigate, and punish.

So if a person doesn't break a law, then nothing can be done and we should let r/jailbait and r/creepshots stay up. because freedom.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Gawker called him at work and posted his personal and private info in a very public place. He has a bunch of dildos in his possession, which they published. That's more prejudicial info than probative.

The conversation began on gchat. He invited the phone call to his office.

You act like you're taking this grand stand for justice. This isn't a fucking trial. The same rules don't apply.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 12:57 PM

"reasonable suspicion"

"more prejudicial than probative"

get outta here

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

There are. They will investigate and make arrests if necessary. It isn't your position to investigate, and punish.

Also, his employer punished him. And reasonably so. Gawker did not.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 01:03 PM

but at this point i think i've said my piece. you think anonymity is sacred enough to force us to accept the most deplorable things imaginable that are still technically legal. that's fine.

i think it's absurd. conversation can probably end there.

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 03:02 PM

Never said anonymity was sacred. Typical Eulogy straw man.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Never said anonymity was sacred. Typical Eulogy straw man.

then why are you so upset that he lost it

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

his admission to all of it?

He never said "I possess child pornography" which is the legal concern here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

So if a person doesn't break a law, then nothing can be done and we should let r/jailbait and r/creepshots stay up. because freedom.

If a person doesn't break a law... Stupid question. The people breaking the law should be punished by the law. If he enables them, he should testify against them and we should enact laws to prevent these places from cropping up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

The conversation began on gchat. He invited the phone call to his office.

You act like you're taking this grand stand for justice. This isn't a fucking trial. The same rules don't apply.

Apparently the same rules don't apply because you think acting above and beyond the law is just and not at all slippery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

"reasonable suspicion"

"more prejudicial than probative"

get outta here

I has formal education in dem der trials! Yay!

duovamp · 10-17-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

then why are you so upset that he lost it

I'm not.

I'm upset Gawker invaded his privacy and intentionally opened him to potential harm when they should've contacted a better authority to deal with this dirtbag.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

I has formal education in dem der trials! Yay!

he is not on trial. this is not about the law.

gawker attached a name to everything everyone already knew or could find out about him. period. nothing wrong in that when the person who is being identified did all kinds of deplorable shit and encouraged others to do all kinds of deplorable shit.

but there should be no reaction to r/jailbait because no one at gawker is a law enforcement official. give me a fucking break. you have some inconceivably strange opinions about some things.

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

I'm not.

I'm upset Gawker invaded his privacy and intentionally opened him to potential harm when they should've contacted a better authority to deal with this dirtbag.

what's the better authority

Eulogy · 10-17-2012, 03:11 PM

why are you so hung up on the legality? the whole point is that what he's doing is horrific but still maybe technically legal. jesus christ.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Guy talks about meeting Nirvana (and later the Pumpkins) on reddit	seign	Pumpkins Archive	26	09-19-2012 07:51 PM
i went to reddit for the first time today.	yo soy el mejor	General Chat Archive	29	09-04-2012 11:16 AM
Obama on reddit (right now)	duovamp	General Chat Archive	33	08-31-2012 11:00 AM
Linda Strawberry Smearing Billy on Reddit	jumanji	Pumpkins Archive	23	04-19-2010 06:19 PM
Lots of hits from Reddit today	Nimrod's Son	General Chat Archive	10	10-21-2009 09:16 PM

10-17-2012, 08:13 AM	#212
hnibos Braindead Location: I was just reading, right? Posts: 15,020	Maybe those kids want to be sexed up. That would change everything.

10-17-2012, 10:06 AM	#215
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,674	You have no right to be judge jury and executioner and start dolling out punishments for the way people are. Your job in society isn't to harass and badger and humiliate anyone.

10-17-2012, 10:11 AM	#217
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	also, as has been said repeatedly, there are no proper authorities in this situation.

10-17-2012, 10:25 AM	#218
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	lines have to be drawn somewhere. and again, no one has really presented anything other than a slippery slope argument that is no more valid than gay marriage opponents saying it'll lead to men marrying dogs. drawing the line on this side of r/creepshots and r/jailbait seems utterly reasonable to me. someone explain why it's not.

10-17-2012, 10:31 AM	#219
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	and you guys are i guess saying that the line should be drawn between what is legal and what is illegal? i guess i understand why that's appealing. but i cannot agree with it. but if that's where you guys are coming from then i can probably bring myself to agree to disagree for the time being. sorry for all the outbursts but stuff like this really really really really bothers me a lot.

10-17-2012, 11:05 AM	#221
hnibos Braindead Location: I was just reading, right? Posts: 15,020	I don't know why there's any argument here whatsoever. Some people are afraid of where this can go, context be damned, and some people are like, well, he's not legally in trouble but he's a pedophile and his name should be out there. As far as the people being afraid of where this can lead (slippery slope), I like to think the majority of decent people will know where to draw the line. For example, I think most decent people will agree that supporting any Catholic institution is repugnant, but, if they're a fan of a football team representing a Catholic education institution, they probably don't deserve to lose their job and insurance over it. I'm sure they would have no sympathy towards such a person if it occured, but should they get that sort of "punishment"? Of course not. In the end, they aren't really hurting anyone. Not really, and not the same way a pedophile might (pictures without consent).

10-17-2012, 11:08 AM	#222
TuralyonW3 Immortal Posts: 25,567	I'm not even saying he's a pedophile....I'm just saying that what gawker did was not wrong...or at the very least certainly not any worse what he was doing

10-17-2012, 11:31 AM	#225
Dead Frequency Minion of Satan Location: They don't know who did it, but they're looking for hardened criminals Posts: 5,960	I don't know, it sounds like no-one insofar has condoned his behavior, no-one thinks that children should be taken advantage of regardless of intent. However, if the action is deemed punishable - it should be doled out in what is considered the norm. The fact that he deleted, without report, CP on a consistent basis, in a public forum, in an effort to further his own agenda makes him no less than that dude who saw sandusky buttfucking the kid in the shower and did nothing.

10-17-2012, 11:39 AM	#227
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,674	Is there any evidence beyond reasonable suspicion btw?

10-17-2012, 12:57 PM	#231
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	"reasonable suspicion" "more prejudicial than probative" get outta here

10-17-2012, 01:03 PM	#233
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	but at this point i think i've said my piece. you think anonymity is sacred enough to force us to accept the most deplorable things imaginable that are still technically legal. that's fine. i think it's absurd. conversation can probably end there.

10-17-2012, 03:02 PM	#234
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,674	Never said anonymity was sacred. Typical Eulogy straw man.

10-17-2012, 03:11 PM	#240
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	why are you so hung up on the legality? the whole point is that what he's doing is horrific but still maybe technically legal. jesus christ.