New Testingstan

adr wrote:why is feb 2 a date that stands out to me

letia has her doctor thing today

but i feel like there's something else significant about this day

groundhog day?

whatever a groundhog is

i guess that might be it


fun fact btw: we've had an abnormally warm winter

january 2012 was 6 degrees (F) warmer than 2011 and we got 6 inches less snow

it is usually the coldest month and it wasn't even that cold



just two or three more months of winter and we're clear

with the pattern right now i'm not sure we're going to have a real winter this year at all

if you haven't shoveled twice your body mass in snow today you are a pussy no excuses

i used to think living up here gave me insurance against that

i blame global warming

fuck al gore

apparently arguing a position against the old boys gets you banned

seriously though, what rules did those guys break?

Crazedwraith wrote:

adr wrote:why is feb 2 a date that stands out to me

letia has her doctor thing today

but i feel like there's something else significant about this day

groundhog day?

whatever a groundhog is

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog

adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?

sometimes i wish i could still see the hos (not really)

adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?

Who got banned?

Aaron wrote:

adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?

Who got banned?

i'd wager the pedobear squad

The Wookiee wrote:Okay, just going down the list of sick fucks and otherwise...

Cesario: You are a sick scumbag. Perm-ban.
Comrade Claus: You were already on thin ice and you're a generally useless dumbfuck. You are also a sick scumbag. Perm-ban.
S.L.Acker: Maybe you should've hung out in the background a while longer before you tried to tangle with the big boys. Perm-ban.

from https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2#p3634552

ComradeClaus, Cesaro, and Slacker all at the same time! Dalton scores the Hat Trick!

He did get a one-liner in there.

The Wookiee wrote:

Flagg wrote:WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE? You call a mod a cunt and it's permban time instantly, but you can peddle child molestation apologistic filth and you're allowed to continue? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

I hadn't logged on yet.

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

if they can be banned for being "sick scumbags" who's next

the destruction of civil liberties on star destroyer.net is frightening


this precedent will have a chilling effect on future ethical discussions

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

if they can be banned for being "sick scumbags" who's next

the destruction of civil liberties on star destroyer.net is frightening


this precedent will have a chilling effect on future ethical discussions

i think kiddy fiddlers are an exception to the rule

Man why is it super important to keep the HoS behind closed doors?

The idea you can argue for anything so long as you argue well certainly has exceptions for topics that are indefensible. You can argue that indefensible is subjective but its pretty damn clear sometimes.

Also props to Coffee and Ando for a successful avatar bandwagon!

Wow. Mine eyes have seen the end of the world; and it was horrifying. Uhhh - look, when there is a thread created with a title "Rodentia-based RPGs" it's time to stop.

Wow, DF, we actually manage to argue three fuckwits into getting themselves banned. Cue Queen's "We Are The Champions"...

You notice how Terralthra, for being a chickenshit and not coming out with an answer to a couple of questions, appears to have escaped punishment entirely?

Darth Fanboy wrote:You notice how Terralthra, for being a chickenshit and not coming out with an answer to a couple of questions, appears to have escaped punishment entirely?

seems to be par per course

whenever he's challenged with tough questions he scampers away until the next thread

someone should call him on it

Hypothetically, wouldn't it be perceived as vendetopathy ?

Oxymoron wrote:Hypothetically, wouldn't it be perceived as vendetopathy ?

Oxymoron's Sig wrote:No.

Calling him out in directly might be, but noting it to a mod in private should he ever do it again without making a public stink about it would probably be the way to go by SDN terms. Granted if i'm a mod over there in this situation I ask Terralthra those questions straight up and if he answers like Cesario and Slacker then buh bye.

Mr.Coffee wrote:Wow, DF, we actually manage to argue three fuckwits into getting themselves banned. Cue Queen's "We Are The Champions"...

Man I miss all the fun ... damn time zones ....

Darth Fanboy wrote:The idea you can argue for anything so long as you argue well certainly has exceptions for topics that are indefensible.

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.


Let's look at the thread.

No, you're the one claiming that it's somehow not pedophilia because it's a drawing of a child and not a picture of an actual child, guy.

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.

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.


Fanboy's following post can counter the meat of the argument:

By your own fucking words, the small minority of them WILL harm someone.

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.

Exact same or not it's the product of a diseased fucking mind that needs to be responsibly treated and addressed by professionals, not apologized for because "drawings aren't people."

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.

Instead, they got onto more tangents with the DSM and rape fantasies.... all of that shit is irrelevant and just gives yourself trouble down the line.

Page 3 goes down on more bad tangents. It's bad debate form to let the other guy get you off message, and these guys did that a lot.


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.

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.

Pages four and five should have never happened.