Setanta wrote:David:
I don't actually consider you to be a fundamentally dishonest person--not necessarily. I consider that you often have naively simplistic points of view, especially as regards capitalism, alleged laissez-faire "free markets, and the issue of gun control. But i think you have been basically honest in the naive (and what i think are ill-considered) remarks you have made on those subjects.
I do believe you have been dishonest on the issue of child pornography and rape. Of course, it didn't help that you unwittingly walked into a hornet's nest. Essentially, you were blind-sided by this topic, because, i suspect, you were not prepared for the reactions it would get.
Agrote revealed his paedophilia quite some time ago--it may have been as much as two years ago. Then he began his latest attempt at self-justification in the thread to which i and others have referred. In the interim, between the time he first revealed that he is a paedophile, and the time when he started his thread on a law proposed in the UK, the member Hawkeye raised some truly bizarre issues about rape and the age of consent. He stated that he thought rape laws are actually an example of prejudice against men. He stated that there can be no such thing as marital rape. He even wandered deep enough into the quicksand to allege that having sexual relations with an unconscious woman does not constitute rape. He railed against age of consent laws, and argued that even "the experts" don't have a clear idea of what consent is, and he consistent avoided ever responding to the issue of informed consent. He jumped into Agrote's thread about the proposed new law in the UK to bring up his views on rape again, and he got hammered for it. So he started a thread of his own, and attempted to justify sexual relations with adolescent girls, and attempted to justify his views on rape. Drew Dad started a thread in which he stated in no uncertain terms that it is wrong to view child pornography, a direct response to and lampoon of Agrote's thread.
So by the time you came along with your threads on this topic, people were sick to death of the entire subject. They were sick of it popping up everywhere (or so it seemed) and they were sick of what they saw as the necessity of constantly pointing out that child pornography is wrong, and why it is wrong.
You first sally into the subject was rather naive. You suggested that child rape could be ended (or, as you later claimed, reduced) if children who "consented" were allowed to pose for photographs, which could then be provided to people who wanted to view them, and that that would reduce the incidence of child rape.
This is naive because it ignores the issue of informed consent. Anyone who is under the age of 18 is legally a child. The law considers that people under the age of 18 are not sufficiently mature and lack sufficient experience of the world to give informed consent to a variety of things, and not just sex. For example, someone under the age of 18 is not allowed to sign a financially binding contract, because the law considers that they lack the maturity and experience to understand what it means to agree to financially binding conditions. Of course, the law also considers that children under the age of 18 lack the maturity and experience to consent to sexual acts with adults (most state jurisdictions make distinctions about minors having sex with other minors, or having sex with someone who is within three years of their own age).
So your call for children to consent to be photographed for the purpose of assuaging the lusts of paedophiles was naive in that legally (and many here would also say morally), children are not capable of giving informed consent to pose for such photographs. If their parents were to consent for them, the law would consider that a form of child abuse, in that it would exploit them sexually.
That is why your response to this topic has drawn the fire and ire which you have experienced. It is unfortunate that you later decided to claim that you were not talking about child pornography, but just wanted to discuss the topic of censorship, because that was dishonest on your part.
Believing that you are deluded and naive, but also not believing that you have been willfully dishonest, i am willing to "bury the hatchet" as the expression goes.
At any time, however, that i find you referring to me in a disparaging manner
as you have done in the past--i'll give it back to you in spades.
I consider myself to be a rather radical libertarian;
as such I deny that government has been granted jurisdiction
to impose censorship (tho I must concede its authority to keep military secrets,
as a matter of life & death for our troops).
When I posted the poll to which u have addressed yourself,
I had in mind to practice
wry humor, with a little impish taunting.
When u posted about it,
I perceived your remarks to have been intended as a caustic attack upon me,
to which I responded (in substance) that u can set the issue forth
as u choose in another thread (to which I woud have posted).
Admittedly, in my response I endeavored to be a little bit, mildly, defensively abrasive,
however, I get the sense that u interpreted my response to be
more nasty
than I had intended when I wrote it.
I
LIKE to inquire into logic
and people 's reasoning; (if I respect the person 's mind)
there is something in nature that draws me to do it.
However, when I posted my last censorship thread,
I was thinking:
" jeez, I 'm getting sick of this "; I think it will be
A WHILE
before I get back to posting more new threads like that again.
Concerning the final sentence of your quoted post
:
I have no wish to annoy u; (as of now).
Indeed, I recognize and I am grateful for your demonstrated erudition.
The fact remains that when u address other citizens of this forum,
including me, integrated with your good and valuable information
very, very ofen u make negative personal comments.
This is not a complaint; this is a statement of observed fact.
I don 't choose to indulge in a rhetorical quid pro quo,
as to your last posted sentence,
but I am not Amish nor Quaker or any pacifist.
If u avoid uttering offensive personal comments,
I will do likewise, but if u don 't,
u cannot reasonably expect much of that to pass unnoticed,
and occasionally, defenses are set forth by way of recrimination.
'Twas ever thus.
The olive branch is accepted; (funny: I was thinking the same thing,
of putting an end to hostilities before I read your post).
David
