Godammed SDN

[adr-admin]

anyway what i'm saying here is they made some debating mistakes, but they broke no debating rules even if you don't agree with the position.

the bannings are unjust.

[Zod]

it's not like it's that hard to demonstrate why diddling kids is a bad thing

people that do usually take advantage of a position of trust

a child usually doesn't fully understand the implications of having sex, so it's easy for someone they trust to take advantage of that

taking advantage of someone when they don't fully understand the implications of something is typically considered exploitative and a violation of trust

[adr-admin]

yeah, that's why i'd concede the act is bad right off the bat

but that can be separate from the desires which can be separate from the anime porn

[Darth Fanboy]

That's misplacing the burden of proof. The claim "this is morally permissible" ought to be the default assumption!

It is up to you to show what harm watching anime kiddie porn actually does, and what harm being a pedophile actually does.

They should have driven that home and not let the discussion go off on tangents.

Except I did that by pointing out the blatantly obvious


Let's look at the thread.

What I would have said is: "It doesn't matter whether it is pedophilia or not. Being sexually attracted to someone is not evil." and simply left it at that.

Except that these guys would have taken that line "Being sexually attracted to someone is not evil" and used that as confirmation of their position.

slacker made the mistake of going down the Greece route, thus getting off message; that opened the door to Thanas' fact based rebuttal as well as attacks about the harm of rape itself. I'd just concede that sex with a child is bad; no need to get into a messy and probably losing argument there.

This mistake will bite him a couple pages later.

And if he would have done that...IF he would have done that and then just bowed the fuck out. Maybe I wouldn't have kept on him.

slacker's response to this is ok; the act is still what's bad, not the thought, and there it is not necessarily true that the thoughts lead to the act; if it was, it would be more than a small minority.

slacker's response was weak, he said "So your entire rambling has been based on how you feel and not any facts or documented research. Thank you very much for wasting all of our time."

It's not awful by sdn standards, but he should have driven home the distinction: the act is wrong because it hurts other people. The thought does not hurt other people, therefore it is not wrong.

This sole message could have carried him through the second page.

Except that the thought is harmful, while if kept internally it isn't harmful to anyone else it can still be very harmful to the person who is thinking them.

But, then, of course, Fanboy asked if they "1 - Do you dispute that being sexually attrracted to children is wrong?". Cesario responded with the correct answer: yes. That should be the main point they drove home after establishing that anime porn does no direct harm to someone.

There is literally nothing more I can and will say to you either.

At the time I had every intention on just walking the fuck away, at that point I had reported the post, and they were going to be banned by virtue of how they responded to that question. I jumped back in though because I admit, there was some entertainment value in mocking them. To me this wasn't a serious discussion like the one in the extradition thread.

That's victory! Since the default position is something is not immoral, they burden of proof was on you guys. By responding with this, it means they won.

I have never ever heard of someone winning an argument by saying that it's ok to fantasize about sex with children.

Pages four and five should have never happened.

I will agree to disagree there.

[Darth Fanboy]

yeah, that's why i'd concede the act is bad right off the bat

but that can be separate from the desires which can be separate from the anime porn

But he never really did that, like I said the whole thing takes a completely different course if he was actually debating the merits of what can be considered harmful rather than trying to defend what I still consider to be indefensible. If he starts by saying, "Look this some sick shit and I don't agree with it and I don't agree that children should be sexualized but in this case aint nobody bein' hurt" we get closer to the same page, but that bowlful of scrotum rash launched a vigorous defense that could only be met with vigorous offense.

For America.

[uraniun235]

yeah but what the hell ever happened to "its not what positions you take but how well you argue it?"

this hasn't been the case for years as demonstrated by the board policy on IvP

[weemadando]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

*raises hand* Does loli have to equal pedophilia? I mean from what i've seen with lolis they are a flat chested miniature adult when compared to an anime adult, when an actual child would look different face, body proportion wise, and behaviorally wise, when compared to an actual adult . Same thing with teenagers in anime looking like their fully adult counter parts but 3 inches shorter.

[adr-admin]

Except that the thought is harmful, while if kept internally it isn't harmful to anyone else it can still be very harmful to the person who is thinking them.

I think you could say that about lust in general.

At the time I had every intention on just walking the fuck away, at that point I had reported the post, and they were going to be banned by virtue of how they responded to that question.

The SDN administration is the biggest joke here. Tyrants with delusions of logic.

[Dooey Jo]

surely the default position must be that the morality of an act is undefined

[Aaron]

Are you shocked? Appalled?

You shouldn't be, at this point this just gets a shrug from me. Actually I'll say its a step up from the rules lawyering of the past. At least Rob was honest.

[adr-admin]

surely the default position must be that the morality of an act is undefined

i think undefined is the same as permissible

if it doesn't have morality value defined you wouldn't stop it, would you? not until you have some reason to think it is bad

[Oxymoron]

Morality firewall ! Should the default value be "authorize" or "deny" ?

[adr-admin]

i say there's three categories of morality points if you will:

encourage, discourage, and leave alone


personally for me i tend to say no to things i'm not sure about

but when it comes to deciding for other people, i say leave alone and let them do their own thing unless i'm convinced one way or the other

[starku]

thats why we're all glad it isn't up to you

[adr-admin]

hey it beats arbitrary, whimsical bannings

oh well it has very real legal ramifications so omg

[Dooey Jo]

surely the default position must be that the morality of an act is undefined

i think undefined is the same as permissible

if it doesn't have morality value defined you wouldn't stop it, would you? not until you have some reason to think it is bad

it means you don't know whether you should stop it or not and so it is difficult to say what one should do in that situation, but ultimately that doesn't matter when you are discussing something

like, it would be unreasonable to expect no justification from someone who claims "killing should be permissible". likewise, the default assumption that something causes no harm is pretty dangerous, especially when it comes to waste management, but the general principle applies to everything. thoughts can maybe generally be assumed to cause little harm, at least in the short term

but the point is they should both be able to defend their positions and unless it is a court or something the burden of proof should not be defined to favour one side or other

[Zod]

hey, that hornet's nest looks soft and squishy and kinda harmless from over here, i'mma go stick my pecker in it

what's the worst that could happen

[starku]

oh i wasn't talking about moderator/sdn business

man you know the legal thingo

with laws being changed maybe they should cut out the constant fansub discussion :V

[adr-admin]

like, it would be unreasonable to expect no justification from someone who claims "killing should be permissible".

eh i dont see it that way. these arguments are trivially easy to make, so the honest debator really should consider them instantly without waiting for the opponent to do it


"killing should be permissible"

"why?"

"it just should" (no justification)

"but killing hurts ppl"

"ok conceded"

---

now on the other hand:

---

"wearing a jacket inside should be permissible"

"why?"

"no u have to say why it shouldn't be"

"eh i got nothing"

thus it is still permissible; the arguments to discourage it didn't fly. there was no argument to permit it either, but i say that's not necessary

now the argument really should happen, so i guess this is where it is undefined

but after the argument, if neither side made good points, that's where i default to permissible

likewise, the default assumption that something causes no harm is pretty dangerous, especially when it comes to waste management, but the general principle applies to everything. thoughts can maybe generally be assumed to cause little harm, at least in the short term

this is valid but is still easy enough to consider

"x should be permissible"

"but it might hurt ppl and restricting it isn't a big harm"

"ok i agree we'll say no just in case till we know for sure"



am i making sense here

[adr-admin]

actually if you replace "it just should" with "because i want to do it", there's a trivial justification for the permissive default

"killing should be allowed"

"why"

"because i want to do it" (tied to this: denying me what i want diminishes my happiness or whatever)

"but it hurts ppl and that is bad"

"ok conceded"

[Oxymoron]

In France we have this thingo we call the "Precaution Principle", and it's a big thing other there, as it's currently the paradigm of, among other things, our National Bioethics Commission : basically, as long as something can't be proved to be ""harmless"", it isn't authorized ; or at least heavily restricted.

... Or so goes the argument as far as I understand it.

[starku]

Arguably that's a specific situation or industry where stricter controls are considered necessary

[Civil War Man]

Cue Queen's "We Are The Champions"...

[Oxymoron]

Arguably that's a specific situation or industry where stricter controls are considered necessary

The same argument is equally applied on all sectors implying critical security factors (natural & technological hazards prevention, nuclear safety, building codes, environmental safety, etc...).

But I don't know if it is applied on "personal/citizen's matters"... I don't really think so. In this case it would be more along the line of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or doesn't break existing laws, it's tolerated".
Except for recreational drugs. Even when we are the world's champion in legal psychotropics drugs prescription per capita per annum (anxyolitics, happy pills and things like that). Go figure...

[adr-admin]

I'd say when scoring if you should permit something, you want to look at 1) how much harm is done to people, 2) how many people can be affected by it, and 3) what the odds of harm are.

Any one aspect being high warrants caution, but if the other two are small enough, it might be ok anyway.