Sock puppets, spammers, and people who openly call for genocide are banned in this forum.

What about people who defend pedophilia?

Because, you know, I am not happy at all to see that here. Not one bit.

Was there a specific thread or poster you were referring to?

Just wondering, because I hadn't seen anyone recently talk about that kind of thing.


- Ed C.

Fritzs, in the RPG subforum.

QuoteWas there a specific thread or poster you were referring to?

Just wondering, because I hadn't seen anyone recently talk about that kind of thing.

I think there are at least 2 different threads discussing the subject at hand.  Maid and Carcosa.

Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.

I dont know, it can be tricky to generalize a rule. For example pedophilia currently includes 17 year olds (at least here), but that can even change in a month with a new law that moves the age bar, and suddenly its becomes ok.  
Of course there are extreme examples that are more clear on which side they are, the challenge is not to drag the grey area in between. A trap easily triggered when drawing general rules.

There are quite a few people on the site who are only here to argue - no matter the subject. Why Fritzs chose that subject to make a stand is beyond me, but there you go.

Where's the line? A few months ago, i saw a thread elsewhere where a 'gamer' was suggesting a game where you played yourself and the GM could do anything he wanted to your 'character', in his words, "including raping your wife, girlfriend etc"

To borrow a line from Friends - "You crossed the line. No, you're so far over the line, the line is a dot to you."

There is difference between child molesting and pedophilia.

My stance:

Pedophilia=paraphilia, sexual deviation from common sexuality, in this specific case it is defined as:

-Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning sexual activity with a sexually immature child (usually age 13 or under).

-This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning.

-The patient is 16 or older and at least 5 years older than the child.

So as you can see, while pedophilia might result in child molesting, but pedophile isn't necessary child molester. The cause of pedophilia is presently unknown, but speculated to be result of changes in hypothalamus. Acording to psychnet-uk.com, pedophilia, like rest of paraphilic fantasies begin in late childhood or adoloescence and continue troughtfull life, so itisn't something you choose to be, but rather something you are born with/shaped into during childhood. Treatment is mixture of psychotherapy and medication.

Child molester=obviously someone who had molested child.

So taking one and one together, pedophile isn't necessarily child molester and child molester doesn't have to be pedophile.

Look how quickly the gang of censors come out when an issue comes up they don't agree with.  

Nowhere do I see anyone promoting sexual interaction with children.  Fritzs is trying to argue that pedophilia is a clinical psychological disease and those who have it should be treated.  He's made a clear distinction between the act of child abuse and the predilection of pedophilia.  A pretty standard distinction in psychology.  Why should that be censored?  Move it off-topic at this point, sure, but I don't see any lines being crossed here.

I think part of peoples problems with Fritz is his mastery of English, which can be at times somewhat poor. (I do think he tries very hard, but just doesn't always pull it off.) (And not everything he writes is poorly written, just some of the higher order stuff in my opinion.) Since we tend to judge each other on what we write, how we write it becomes very important.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258121Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.

Instead of using laws to censor him, we'll just show up in gangs and shout him down.

Haven't seen much posting on RPG subjects recently, Kyle Aaron, but you sure seem to have time for a moral outrage post or two.

Quote from: walkerp;258176Look how quickly the gang of censors come out when an issue comes up they don't agree with.  

Nowhere do I see anyone promoting sexual interaction with children.  Fritzs is trying to argue that pedophilia is a clinical psychological disease and those who have it should be treated.  He's made a clear distinction between the act of child abuse and the predilection of pedophilia.  A pretty standard distinction in psychology.  Why should that be censored?  Move it off-topic at this point, sure, but I don't see any lines being crossed here.

I think that his argument changing from defending the right of people to do what they please as long as they don't break the law, at home, to the whole pedophile thing is what has disturbed some folk. As Serious Paul has said, the language barrier might be a contributing factor, but the possible link between his starting position upto the thread derail about pedophiles is what has a few peoples' blood up, i think (they can correct me, if i'm wrong).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258121Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.

I agree with Kyle.  Fritzs has dug his his own credibility's grave.  I say mock away until he figures this out for himself.

As most people know, I am steadfastly against official sanction for those that are just annoying, foolish, or don't agree with popular opinion.  Fritzs fits into all three of those categories in spades, but doesn't warrant official sanction in my opinion.


TGA

Quote from: walkerp;258200Instead of using laws to censor him, we'll just show up in gangs and shout him down.

No, no. We mock and denigrate them, and thus make their time here unfulfilling for them. That is, inasmuch as they're saying vile things. If Fritzs wants to pop up in a roleplaying thread and discuss the actual topic I'm not about to start blathering about his defence of paedophiles. But if he does defend them, then I'll mock and denigrate him.

No shouting's needed.

Quote from: walkerpHaven't seen much posting on RPG subjects recently, Kyle Aaron, but you sure seem to have time for a moral outrage post or two.

Then you haven't been looking. I have time for rpg posts and mocking people. I'm flexible like that.

Of course, if you prefer then we can take Jong's suggestion and just ban the motherfucker.

Or is there a third option? To tolerate all views, no matter how retarded or vile? Ah, well then perhaps you'd enjoy Tangency over on rpg.net?

I put him on my ignore list.