agrote wrote:Quote:Nonsense.
This is some of the worst bullshit you have posted here.
You disgust me for the mere fact that you are a paedophile.
Your thread whines
You whine
I reject your self-serving whine entirely.
your stupid, self-serving whines
your incredible self-righteousness about ethics, a concept which i doubt you understand
i think that you are either a glutton for punishment (rather like self-flagellating christian ascetics), or you derive some weird kind of kick out of parading your pathology in front of an audience.
I'm not going to respond to personal attacks, and your latest post contains so many of them that I think I'd rather limit myself to responding to the portions of your previous post (which wasn't littered with insults) that you say that I edited unacceptably
To say that what you write is stupid, or a whine, or to comment on your attitude toward ethics are none of them personal attacks. By that logic, carried to its extreme, no one could disagree with or disparage any opinion you hold and express without you characterizing it as
argumentum ad hominem. That is a specific term for a logical fallacy in which someone's position is dismissed based upon disparaging personal characterizations
rather than upon the substance of the person's argument. That i am disgusted by paedophiles and say as much does not make what i have written
argumentum ad hominem, because i have argued against what you have written, or dismissed what you have for clearly defined reasons. That you find personal remarks unpleasant is a problem you'll have to deal with, but it does not invalidate what i have argued.
Quote:Setanta wrote: you chose to truncate my response by quoting only the first sentence and discarding the rest of my response to that first question. In that my entire post leads to a response to the theme of the thread, that is unacceptable editing.
You hacked up my post with wild abandon. The post was a unitary whole, and lead to my final remark on the topic, which you aborted completely from your response...
I quoted and responded to only those portions of your post about which I had something to say
How very convenient for you. When i took the trouble to respond to the topic of your thread, and specifically to the five questions which you addressed to Wolf Woman and Wilso, your summarized response here is that you are only interested in responding to certain portions of what i wrote.
I will take that as a tacit admission that your position with regard to the proposed legislation for the United Kingdom to which you objected is either indefensible, or that you personally are unable to defend your objection.
Quote:You left this issue aside. That's why I didn't respond to it.
I didn't complain that you hadn't responded to that portion of my post, which was offered in answer to one of the five questions you had posted.
Quote:Quote:Agrote's remarks about reporting child sexual abuse and the protection of children i consider disingenuous, and an attempt on his part to make him appear to be a reasonable person. He may be a reasonable person, except for insofar as he is attracted to images of child sexual abuse, and make no mistake that engaging in sexual acts with children constitutes child sexual abuse.
You accuse me of pretending to be a reasonable person, then you admit that I may in fact
be a reasonable person. I didn't think this tentative
argumentum ad hominem required a response, so I didn't give one.
I know of no such thing as a "tentative"
argumentum ad hominem. I did not argue that you are wrong or that your objection to the proposed law is wrong because of character flaws. I did point out that an attraction to images of child sexual abuse is a strong reason to doubt that you are a reasonable person, which is how i interpreted you remarks about the protection of children. Were you so reasonable as you claim with regard to the subjection of child sexual abuse, i doubt that you would make an argument, such as you have offered more than once in this thread, that there were nothing wrong with viewing images of child sexual abuse which has already taken place, but for which you are not required to pay. Your exchanges with Joe lead you to condemn such acts on a moral basis, and you have failed to adequately dispute or to refute his argument to the effect that whether or not one pays to see such images is irrelevant to the moral character of the activities involved--either the activity of producing the images or the activity of viewing them. On such a basis, i feel justified in raising doubts about the extent to which you are a reasonable man. It is hardly an
argumentum ad hominem to reject someone's alleged logical argument on the basis that you doubt that your interlocutor is being reasonable--it in fact goes to the very heart of forensic exchanges.
Quote:You state that you aren't accusing me of being a cultural relativist; and indeed I am not one. I don't actually disagree with this paragraph, but nor do I see its relevance to the present discussion. That is why I haven't responded to it.
It wasn't intended to elicit a response from you, and it ought to be obvious that it was offered to avoid anyone offering an argument from moral relativism, as has been done in the past.
Once again, i reject any attempt on your part to compare paedophilia to homosexuality, or any other form of sexuality which occurs between consenting adults, given that paedophilia clearly
does not involve mutual consent among those who are exclusively adults.
If you have such doubts, then you should substantiate them or abandon the argument. It is in the very nature of the bureaucracy of a Westminster-style of parliamentary government that permanent undersecretaries of cabinet level departments have taken expert opinion in order to inform the politically appointed ministers who head those ministries. It would a divergence from the practices of government not to have done so, and therefore would constitute an extraordinary claim on your part. Those who offer extraordinary claims have the burden of proving them--therefore, if you allege that the proposed legislation is based upon public hysteria or revulsion rather than expert opinion offered by senior members of the permanent civil service to the minister or ministers responsible, you need offer evidence to that effect, rather than just throwing it out there.
Therefore, i return to my original summary response to this thread. If the leaders of government offer legislation against the dissemination of images of child sexual abuse, without regard to the provenance, because they are advised by those who are alleged to be expert in these matters that there is a proximate potential harm to society, i consider that the state has a compelling interest in implementing such legislation.
If you are simply arguing that there is no such expert opinion, or that none has been offered to responsible minister in government, and that the legislation of simply a response by government to public hysteria or revulsion, you have the burden of providing evidence in support of your position. Since you offer none, simply your own speculation to that effect, i consider your speculation to be, at least to this point, groundless, and an insufficient objection to the legislation in prospect.
I would agree if you were saying the term isn't strong enough to truly describe their heinousness. One would have to be demented to view children as erotic, so sick is certainly part of the equation
but that's not as far as this discussion has gone. A couple of these demented A-holes went so far as to rationalize their heinous dementia as just another flavor of sex, which presents a clear and present danger to any child they come in contact with. I regard them as I would a rabid dog. It matters little what other attributes they may or may not possess; they are a danger to the pack and should be put down accordingly.
