Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
What I'm objecting to is not the notion that pedophillia or the attraction to kids are a mental disease. What I'm objecting to is this notion that we should have banned Draven for being a pedophile and not for being a horrible person who seriously believed his pedophillia was justified if not by society's standards but by his very own bizarre standards.
Bullying someone with a mental illness isn't going to do anything but make the problem worse. You don't tell someone who's depressed and cutting that their depression is their fault and that they should just straighten their lives the fuck out. You don't ridicule an autistic to encourage him to learn social skills.
Hate the sin, not the sinner, blah blah blah. Unless they want to act on their attraction, their problem isn't entirely their fault. They should get help, not be told that they're horrible.
ninja'd like a motherfucker
Pretty much. If he had simply said, "I am screwed up and need help with this," then that's different. But he didn't. He tried to justify himself and brush it all off like it was no issue. What a wretched person.
And before that he was a kobold wizard who shot fireballs.
Yes, it's absolutely a negative condition and requires treatment. But saying that a paedophile is inherently a bad person is damning someone for a mental illness. Some paedophiles fail and abuse children; others have the strength not to, and I think that shows an admirable degree of restraint and moral fibre. Many probably never speak of their condition and are perhaps too anxious to even see a psychologist about it.
Fixing the issue, insofar as it can be fixed, requires people as a whole to accept that a paedophile is not inherently a bad person while remaining aware that paedophilia is a negative condition. I don't want to encourage the molestation or rape of children, but I do want to encourage paedophiles to seek therapy and treatment. The issue with blanket hatred towards the condition is that we can end up with people like Draven, driven into their own little corners of reality and morality that normalise their condition and their fantasies. Given the choice between making such people more dangerous and less visible or making an honest attempt at rehabilitating them, I would choose the latter.
In addition, I really don't think banning someone for "being an X" is good regardless of what X is. Like Shichibukai: I'm pretty sure everyone knew he was a racist, but we didn't ban him until he actually started saying racist things. Same principle. I wouldn't mind if we had a strict "if you've got creepy fetishes, we don't want to hear about it" rule, but banning someone for just having creepy fetishes I would be very much against.
Fuck, I had forgotten Shichibukai. Why did you have to remind me of him?
I would be totally on board with banning people because they're racist, sexist, transphobic, or whatever, honestly. At least, if they're racist/whatever out of malice, not ignorance.
But that doesn't mean you should treat people badly, especially if they understand that it is indeed a bad thing.
I'm not advocating that, I'm saying that pedophilia is bad and those who have it should seek help, and I seriously doubt that anybody outside of somebody who already posts here quite a bit would go here for said help. If a dude shows up and even casually remarks that he's a pedophile, he should be banned because he's not even trying to get help. For the most part, this:
especially if they understand that it is indeed a bad thing.
is pure fantasy and most likely won't happen with somebody joining this website.
I would be totally on board with banning people because they're racist, sexist, transphobic, or whatever, honestly. At least, if they're racist/whatever out of malice, not ignorance.
I'm honestly surprised that this isn't the case already.
Well, on the one hand, I would say that I wouldn't ban someone for being one of those if they weren't making malicious posts based on it, but the odds that we'd even know they were unless they were doing that are minute, so...well, the ban reason wouldn't be "being a racist" but rather "being an asshole to people and starting up drama," but I can't say we wouldn't.
I would personally consider legitimately hateful behaviour of any kind a warnable if not bannable offense. The various "isms" would fall under this, but as Nova pointed out, only really if they're out of hatred rather than ignorance.
I don't think anyone is honestly claiming that any pedophile who joins this site is suddenly going to learn that molesting kids is bad or the social implications of normalizing the above. But that doesn't mean that people can't understand basic morality like "do not rape people on their own".
Being a pedophile doesn't mean being someone who honestly believes that molesting kids is a-ok. Being a pedophile means being someone who is attracted to kids. From there on, a lot of morality and ethical stands and positions can happen.
ETA: Shichibukai and Chagen both got banned implicitly because of discriminatory comments. I don't think this is something that needs to be on the rules (Seems too obvious to me) but it is something that we seen to have taken into account, if not overtly so.
CountryPumpkin: I agree with this in a sense, if someone just happens to say that here they're a pedophile on here they probably don't think it's a problem to begin with or they're dumb enough to blurt it out anyway. In that case, I think a banning is the right thing to do, after it has been made utterly clear that their fetish is a very bad thing.
That, and I am really, really, uncomfortable with the notion of a pedophile around here and I don't want IJBM to associate with them.
Basically, even as the rules are, the odds of a pedophile/racist/sexist/transphobic not being banned are extremely low, and if they manage to be open about it and not get banned, there's probably a reason for that.
Thus, there's no reason to make an actual "no pedophiles" rule.
What if someone sees this discussion and says "As a pedophile working very closely with a therapist to try to overcome this..." or something along those lines? Where would you stand?
Talking hypotheticals is difficult. It's all in the details. For example, why did they bring it up, and what sort of reaction did they expect?
In that context, and ONLY that context, would I accept that person not being banned. However, I would be wary of such a person because if you were really sincere about not being a pedophile, then you should know to keep it to yourself, therapist, and closest relatives. NOT random people on the internet.
^Also that. I would highly disapprove of using such a thing as a bid for attention, for instance.
-
Seriously, what would possess you to announce that to unqualified strangers?
Eh, I was just curious, really.
To be honest, people use the internet as a context where they seek solace and comfort, and sometimes, that doesn't come around in real life. Does that mean that you should just come to a random forum and tell everyone you're a pedophile? No, not really. But I can't blame someone who would do that, considering that saying that in real life...well, there are very very very few ways in which it can go well, really. And I mean, in the internet, the only serious consequence is a ban and being shunned by a bunch of internet strangers (And being arrested, in some legislations, admittedly). When you measure that against a possible lynching, physical attacks and so on, it hardly seems like a very difficult choice
Not to say that this is a matter where you have to choose between telling strangers on the internet and real life people (You can easily choose both, after all) but that in some cases and contexts, it becomes a choice.
Motivations are a whole kettle of fish I'm not prepared to comment on, but I think a lot of good points have been made here. The most I can say is that I think context certainly plays an important role.
man i have a sudden craving for whedon-shit and i can't find cabin in the woods
watch alien resurrection
well, that certainly puts the shit on "whedon-shit"
IJBM: My mom's speaking volume. If she's on the phone, she speaks very loudly, and she can be heard anywhere in the house. Meanwhile, if she's actually trying to talk to me across the house, she uses a normal speaking voice.
I actually really like Alien 3. It's certainly not what you'd expect from a sequel to Alien or Aliens, but I think it's pretty unique and very well done given its aims. The previous films were horror and horror action, respectively, but Alien 3 is a character film that completes Ripley's arc while telling a redemptive story about a collection of murderers and rapists at the ass-end of space.
With an Alien.
Another fun fact: Both Fincher and Whedon got screwed by Fox
You know, I wonder why Hatter got banned.
I mean, I know why the rest got banned (Shichi was a racist, SotiCoto was a jackass, tnu was extremely mentally unstable and Chagen was all of these things) but why did Hatter get banned?