Most countries prohibit sex with under-16s or under-18s, but in some places the age of consent is as low as 11, or as high as 20.
If he really did say that, you have a solid point that I can’t argue. Link?
ADOL (69): Are physical harm and lack of consent the only reasons to condemn underage sex?DD (70): Holy shit... does there need to be another reason?ADOL (71): In the context of maintaining the general opinion on underage sex: Yes there needs to be another reason. If there wasn't another reason you would have to treat two 16 year olds having sex the same way you treat a 46 year old man having sex with a 16 year old.
Concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors.
If we could, in a hypothetical scenario, say with 100% certainty that someone was harassing another person, but the person being harassed did not care about it for whatever reason, it's still justified to ban them for harassment. Here's why:
- Somebody willing to commit harassment against someone who doesn't care is capable of harassing someone who does care.
- The kind of person who harasses others is almost without doubt a toxic individual who can only contribute to the site's general culture in negative ways.
- A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
- If we know that somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, has harassed other people, they're a bad person and they deserve to be deplatformed. People like that deserve to be treated worse than other people because of their conduct.
- It is not the responsibility of the site and its users to bear the burden of a harasser's conduct and to try and 'help' them in any way. Harassment to the point of being a ban-worthy offence is self-evidently morally incorrect and that fact shouldn't need to be taught
[RationalMadman] Tell us what you think the real minors are then? How low will you go?Tell us. Smartass.
Concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors.He has later gone on to say that while these arguments are insufficient that doesn't mean he doesn't think there are other arguments which are sufficient. Technically grammatically correct I suppose, though he hasn't to my knowledge actually directly said what these hypothetical other arguments might be.
They [children] are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them.
If we could, in a hypothetical scenario, say with 100% certainty that someone was harassing another person, but the person being harassed did not care about it for whatever reason, it's still justified to ban them for harassment. Here's why:
- Somebody willing to commit harassment against someone who doesn't care is capable of harassing someone who does care.
- The kind of person who harasses others is almost without doubt a toxic individual who can only contribute to the site's general culture in negative ways.
- A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
- If we know that somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, has harassed other people, they're a bad person and they deserve to be deplatformed. People like that deserve to be treated worse than other people because of their conduct.
- It is not the responsibility of the site and its users to bear the burden of a harasser's conduct and to try and 'help' them in any way. Harassment to the point of being a ban-worthy offence is self-evidently morally incorrect and that fact shouldn't need to be taught.
They [children] are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them.Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?
A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?No.
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?No.Why?
What if I said the 8-year-old's inability to properly consent like you describe wasn't enough reason to say that the 30-year-old was being fucked up?
According to the mods, they have a right to ban you if they think your harassing someone, even if the individual being harassed doesn’t feel like they’re being harassed.Essentially mods can do whatever they want to because they think someone is harassing someone.Welcome to Nazi Germany folks.
Nor is doxxing "attempted" by certain encouraging statements on that subject Wylted communicated. What in fact happened is that Wylted "request[ed]" information related to potential criminal wrongdoing. That's it.
[CoC] Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
[incel-chud:] I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him [ADOL].
"Creating threads to call out specific users." There is no question Wylted's thread related solely to the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," but the question is whether what Wylted did was reasonable.
[CoC] Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment
On the one hand, the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," is someone who has a repeated history of egregious conduct violations, including based on harassment, over many years and on multiple sites (DDO and DART),
can continue to promulgate his "advocacy" for human sexual intercourse with animals --- a highly controversial political opinion.
While Wylted clearly "called out" ADOL, he did so in a way that would have likely been permitted absent a thread's unique creation. So, to ban him for conduct that is otherwise acceptable simply because it was contained within a thread is reaching.
By that logic, all accusations against a priest who never vocalized his desire to molest alter boys to parishioners can be summarily dismissed.
Yet, the thread title was clearly intended as clickbait and not intended to be taken by any rational observer as a statement of proven fact --- as clearly and unequivocally indicated by the thread which followed the title.
I am happy to discuss this in more detail if people so wish.
Again that goes back to the point of, “I think you’re going to harass someone who does care.” How can you or the mods predict the future?
Wylted has been contributing positively for a decade. Whether that be playing mafia or debating.
Again, you cannot predict the future and it is grounds for abuse of power. If a cop thought I was going to abuse my wife and he arrested me preemptively, that’s wrong.
That is false. Are hecklers bad people. Are the people who followed Sinema into the bathroom bad people? No. They are fighting for their beliefs. Even the mods admitted there was no malice here.
The fact of preemptively censoring someone brings the site to a dictatorship. How would you feel if the mods thought you were harassing me right now and banned you.
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.
"The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." James Kelley, Ph. D.
Wylted called me slurs a half a dozen times and most of his forum posts were him posting conspiracy theories that were either antivax or antisemitic. Calling his contribution 'positive' is either delusion or allegiance to his insanity.
You don't need to predict the future to say that someone being left to fester is probably something that we might want to avoid just to be safe. It's ground for abuse of power, sure, but that's true of every power. That's why we have ban appeals and more than one mod.
This isn't preemptive censorship. We're talking about censorship of harassment that has already occurred. If the mods thought I was harassing you, that'd be bad, because I wasn't. Recall I said it was a hypothetical where we had 100% certainty. Moreover, I'd probably submit a ban appeal. If it didn't go through, well, that sucks, I guess.
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.While I understand what you're saying and you're right, it's basically just adding one more step into the process. It goes from harassment --> violence to harassment --> doxxing/acquiring information --> violence.
Ban appeals serve nothing cause they literally go through the same mods lol.
Have we ever banned someone for creating a call out thread?
