The Compulsive Thread-Derail Attempt Landfill

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel

Wow, some ugliness in this thread. So we've decided that convicted paedophiles are sub-human, yes, but feel free to explain why they aren't not entitled to human rights, i've seen one person say that, and considering that child rape is sick shit, i don't fault them for getting emotional and therefore it's okay for us to fantasise about raping and murdering them people fantasize about non-con sex, too. murdering child molesters is the least of my worries on the fantasy scale, but that's not what anyone was saying. i could get rather sarcastically snarky on you, but I won't. what I, and the majority of others said, was that we couldn't stomach reading about a sympathetic pedo because we believe lusting after, and raping children, is as low as you can go, and that there's nothing "humane" or "redemptive" about it. Zimbardo would be proud. ya know, I'm really not sure what the stanford prison experiment has to do with this. but if given the choice, I'd rather read about the pedo getting the shit kicked out of 'em, rather than the pedo who controls his/her lust, and gets a pat on the head for not raping children. but if there's something ugly about hating child molesters, please, explain what that ugliness is.

...

and just to be clear, i don't hate pedophiles. i think they're disgusting, but i don't hate them. i hate child molesters. there's a difference. i have no desire to understand either in a "positive" light.

[Buffysquirrel]

There's always something ugly about hate.

And the Zimbardo reference is simply to do with the process of dehumanisation I observed. And no, not wanting to read about paedophiles is not the only thing being stated in this thread. That, I entirely sympathise with.

If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights even to people we detest. Same as freedom of speech only has any meaning if we extend it to speech we detest. It's easy to give rights to people we approve of. The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by KateM

I Googled "Lolita" and did not get a single hit. Odd. Looking on Amazon, the "child" in the novel was twelve years old. By puberty the physiological damage caused by sex abuse is dramatically reduced.

He admits to preferring girls between the ages of 8 and 12, therefore Lolita is on the older spectrum.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

Humbert Humbert is a special exception because, from what I've read of Lolita (I'm a third of the way through) you're not supposed to sympathize with him. And, as said above, he's not a pedophile.

He's a mix- he claims to be attracted to girls of 8 up to about 14. I agree with you, you're meant to see him as horrible. His narrative is ironic because he sees himself as a dashing lover, we see him as a pervert.

Has anybody seen either of the adaptations of Lolita?

[Lady Ice]

On the paedophile topic, paedophiles are human but their humanity has been so warped by their obsession that I wouldn't want to promote them in a positive light. And of course, there is a line between paedophiles and child molesters.

[Bufty]

.

=Buffysquirrel;7256913]

If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights....The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group.

And I don't see how the concept or meaning of human rights fails or loses any meaning because an individual or group chooses to act in a manner that forfeits any claim to those rights.

I'm not sure there is any distinction between a paedophile and a child molester.

I apologise if I derailed the thread. I will do so no more.

[Buffysquirrel]

Because if the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, they are rights that cannot be forfeited. Otherwise it's just words on a page.

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel

There's always something ugly about hate. If you say so. Indifference is disgusting, and love, even moreso. What would you suggest we feel for them?

And the Zimbardo reference is simply to do with the process of dehumanisation I observed. And no, not wanting to read about paedophiles is not the only thing being stated in this thread. That, I entirely sympathise with. And I say it's a bs analogy. When you choose to dehumanize yourself, you reap what you sow. It's a child molester, not a pickpocket.

If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights even to people we detest. Same as freedom of speech only has any meaning if we extend it to speech we detest. It's easy to give rights to people we approve of. The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group. Unfortunately, when it comes to them, I can't say I agree. But I don't see them as human, anyway. They can have their pedowebsites, and lust after children all they want. But when they touch kids, they give up their humanity.

If it was up to me, they'd just get the death penalty. Torture in prison, or the possibility of parole, or tax dollars spent giving them food and cable, is too good for them, IMO. And, while I don't care what happens to them, vigilante justice is only good in comic books.

But this is a very personal subject for many, and getting upset because a few express hatred towards those who ruin lives is rather insensitive, especially when you pull the "equal" rights card. As someone who has very close relatives who've been fucked with when they were kids, I don't give two shits about the "equal" rights of their rapists. But I'm not a judge, or a lawmaker. When that moment comes, I'll put aside the emotional tangent.Until then, I'm just a writer who believes showing child rapists in a humane, positive light is sick and twisted, unless it's some kind of satire.

And, yes, you can say that makes us no better than them, (not true) but that's why victims aren't allowed to decide the fate of the accused. That's what court is for.

And that applies to child rapists only, not pedophiles. Pedophiles who don't act on their urges garner no hatred from me, just pity and disgust.

/derail

[KateM]

Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel

Wow, some ugliness in this thread. So we've decided that convicted paedophiles are sub-human, not entitled to human rights, and therefore it's okay for us to fantasise about raping and murdering them. Zimbardo would be proud.

not just convicted ones...

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Seraph

About the feedback, find me a classic that wasn't panned by the critics of its time.

Generally speaking, not true.

[LJD]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Hmmmm, sounds depressing but being a Rowling fan gonna hafta check her out. About the feedback, find me a classic that wasn't panned by the critics of its time. They've also panned a lot of really shitty books, though, so guess I'll just have to read it and see what I think.

Well, if a book wins the Pulitzer it wasn't panned by the critics at the time, was it?

Look up the list of winners. There are a bunch of books I'd call classics on the list. eg. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by Amadan

Generally speaking, not true.

Originally Posted by LJD

Well, if a book wins the Pulitzer it wasn't panned by the critics at the time, was it?

Look up the list of winners. There are a bunch of books I'd call classics on the list. eg. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath.

I was speaking pretty generally. There are classics that have always been well received, and others that haven't, like a few of my faves, Moby Dick and Wuthering Heights. There are also literary books that critics hail but which never sell and are mostly unreadable, pretentious and bad. Which is why I love sites like metacritic and Rottentomatoes that offer users's opinions which I usually find more reliable. My point is critics's opinions should be taken with a, sometimes huge, grain of salt.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I was speaking pretty generally.

Pretty generally, you're wrong.

My point is critics's opinions should be taken with a, sometimes huge, grain of salt.

Good critics explain their opinion, they don't just say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." Which is what makes their opinions more useful than 99% of readers' opinions.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by Amadan

Pretty generally, you're wrong.

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by Amadan

Good critics explain their opinion, they don't just say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it."

Not quite. Good critics are honest, which self-described "critics" aren't anywhere close to the same degree as your average reader/viewer, who don't have the same pretensions and agendas, which is why their opinions are much more reliable. You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Seraph

In your opinion.

No, it's objectively false that most highly regarded literary classics were panned in their day by critics. Some were, but most were not. It's actually pretty rare that a very popular but critically panned writer turns into a literary darling after their death.

Not quite. Good critics are honest, which self-described "critics" aren't anywhere close to the same degree as your average reader/viewer, who don't have the same pretensions and agendas, which is why their opinions are much more reliable. You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.

.... Wow.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by Seraph

You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.

Lock thread. One, two, three . . .

*I am also quite amused by the irony that JKR was also a teacher at one point in her career.

[Seraph]

I already said as much as your post, Amadan, so not sure who you think you're arguing with, except for someone who agrees with you. My position is only critics's opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Rowling was one, even Stephen King. I'd think of them as more the exception, though.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Rowling was one, even Stephen King. I'd think of them as more the exception, though.

There are many writers who are teachers [and there are writer-teachers on this forum.] Off the top of my head:

Philip Pullman
Kathy Reichs [lectures in Forensic Science.]
Simon Scarrow
James Kelman
Madeline Miller [Latinist]
Joanne Harris
Dan Brown
Eoin Colfer
Elizabeth George
Roddy Doyle
William Golding

And that's just off the top of my head . . .

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Chrissy, wouldn't you agree there are some freedoms we should give up for a better running society? As a for instance, and not saying you think so, but do you think people should be free to murder or steal?

I don't believe that anyone has some sort of inherent right to the freedom to steal or murder. That is the sort of thing that makes me not a "complete" anarchist. I believe that society should prevent murder, theft, rape, and fraud, via the legal system.

As an aside, I wouldn't mind if millions of people who are in jail right now for drug possession were freed.

@bloodfiend I find it odd that it is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't care for libertarianism" (and btw, I have no idea who the poster child is, perhaps you could enlighten me?)and get zero flak, whereas if someone were to randomly post, "I don't care for the Democrats' view," they'd be challenged to provide some reasoning forthwith, or face the internet gallows. But it seems it's sufficient in this case to say, "yeah, they suck" and move on. Whatever.

[Chrissy]

@bloodfiend's PR rep: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that I could actually ask a poster to expound upon their views.

As to how long I have been here at AW, versus how long you have been here at AW, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? Oh wait, do I owe you some sort of servitude or deference?

I do believe we have both been residents of Earth for at least the same amount of time, and possibly--not that it matters one iota, mind you, but--I may have been here longer than you have. But no matter, right? We are equal.

And thank you so very much for your explantion as to how you roll. After spending a year and a half and over 4,000 posts here at P&CE, I was confused, but thanks to you, now I understand.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

@bloodfiend's PR rep: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that I could actually ask a poster to expound upon their views.

As to how long I have been here at AW, versus how long you have been here at AW, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? Oh wait, do I owe you some sort of servitude or deference?

No. You were asking why bloodfiend didn't get any "flack" for saying she didn't care for libertarianism. I was trying to be nice about it. I won't next time.

[thebloodfiend]

You guys are interrupting my "waste time on youtube watching drag queens" hour.

Originally Posted by Chrissy

@bloodfiend I find it odd that it is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't care for libertarianism" (and btw, I have no idea who the poster child is, perhaps you could enlighten me?)and get zero flak, whereas if someone were to randomly post, "I don't care for the Democrats' view," they'd be challenged to provide some reasoning forthwith, or face the internet gallows. But it seems it's sufficient in this case to say, "yeah, they suck" and move on. Whatever.

C'mon. You don't know who the libertarian poster child is? I'll give you a hint: REVOLUTION.

Let's make this perfectly clear—I don't care for the views held by quite a few democrats, but that does not mean I don't care for democracy. There are certain parts of our brand of democracy I don't care for, but overall, I'm somewhat content. As for libertarianism? I don't like it. I kind of liked some of the things Gary Johnson stood for, but as a whole, I don't care for libertarianism anymore than I care for neoconversatism or Ayn Rand's objectivism (or her books for that matter, my god).

The main tenets of libertarianism go completely counter to the political views I favor. So there's exactly zero confusion on the matter, I a) like taxes, b) appreciate certain forms of socialism, c) I do not agree with minimal state interference, nor small governments. And I think most libertarians take things to the ultimate extremes. I mean, good god, you've got the dude who set the ball rolling for college idiots looking for a new god saying he's against the civil rights act of 1964.

Most libertarians, from my experience, have no idea what the world would actually be like... no, I'm not going to go there. I'll simply say this—I mostly hear doomsday scenarios from people who lean towards the libertarian spectrum of things. Some of them think it's actually possible for things in this country to progressively get worse and they'd actually like to revert to the "glory" days when things were free and nice and blah. Yeah, okay. Back then, my grandfather would've got shot for painting his own house. And then the house would've been burned down.

Anyway, that's why I don't care for it. You're free not to care for democracy. Or this democratic republic or whatever. I don't really care. I'm not tied to any particular philosophy or political mode of thinking because I find aligning yourself with one party or group sets you back and prevents you from growing. I like to draw from all of them. And while there are some things about libertarianism I can appreciate, ultimately, I just don't care for it.

Originally Posted by Chrissy

@bloodfiend's PR rep: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that I could actually ask a poster to expound upon their views.

I don't really mind, tbh. Celia can speak for me about 80% of the time for all I care.


ETA: US libertarianism, for the Europeans here.

[Chrissy]

Celia, this is ridiculous. In fact, the last several inter-posts between us have been.

My point about Cory getting no flak was that there is not a majority of libertarians on this forum who would challenge her off-the-cuff unsubstantiated dismissal of liberatarians.

Seriously, I am not trying to create random drama here, although... maybe I am, because apparently I have. And I apologize for that.

It just struck me personally as relevant to the the tangental topic.

But really, actually am just this shy of beyond caring, so I, sort of like rugcat, have to question why I am still responding. Is it worth it to even engage? I guess I can't help myself either sometimes.

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

My point about Cory getting no flak was that there is not a majority of libertarians on this forum who would challenge her off-the-cuff unsubstantiated dismissal of liberatarians.

It's not unsubstantiated at all. I don't care for the core tenets of your political philosophy.

It's like me saying, "I don't care for pickled foods."

You are perfectly in the clear to say, "I don't care for democracy." I doubt anyone will care. I don't.

You and Don and the other part time libertarians have explained it a million times. And even after the jillionth explanation, I still don't care for it. I doubt I ever will. There is exactly nothing you could say that will make me change my mind. Seriously. What is with people not understanding that a) not everyone thinks alike, a b) the reason behind this is not because we don't understand what you're saying, and c) it's just because we don't agree.

I have a very good understanding of the basic form of American Libertarianism. I do not like it. Just like I don't like anarchy. Or Christianity. Or any of the Judeo-Christian religions for that matter. Or Fred. Or Nu-Metal. Or Cormac McCarthy's brand of "I hate grammar" writing. It is not because I don't understand it. It's because I understand it that I don't like it.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

You guys are interrupting my "waste time on youtube watching drag queens" hour. C'mon. You don't know who the libertarian poster child is? I'll give you a hint: REVOLUTION.

Evol? I'm still lost. God, I suck.

Let's make this perfectly clear—I don't care for the views held by quite a few democrats, but that does not mean I don't care for democracy. There are certain parts of our brand of democracy I don't care for, but overall, I'm somewhat content. As for libertarianism? I don't like it. I kind of liked some of the things Gary Johnson stood for, but as a whole, I don't care for libertarianism anymore than I care for neoconversatism or Ayn Rand's objectivism (or her books for that matter, my god).

First, democrats do not equal democracy.

Second, if you are able to separate Gary Johnson from Ayn Rand, you just might be a libertarian But seriously, I don't see the Libertarian Party as having a solid core message (in the way that the Dem's are total socialists and the Rep's are total authoritarian religious zealots Okay, no, seriously, the Dem's are a softer version of total authoritarian zealots--it's just that everything they stand for isn't religious but it's still Very Good For You.)

The main tenants of libertarianism go completely counter to the political views I favor. So there's exactly zero confusion on the matter, I a) like taxes, b) appreciate certain forms of socialism, c) I do not agree with minimal state interference, nor small governments. And I think most libertarians take things to the ultimate extremes. I mean, good god, you've got the dude who set the ball rolling for college idiots looking for a new god saying he's against the civil rights act of 1964.

Most libertarians, from my experience, have no idea what the world would actually be like... no, I'm not going to go there. I'll simply say this—I mostly hear doomsday scenarios from people who lean towards the libertarian spectrum of things. Some of them think it's actually possible for things in this country to progressively get worse and they'd actually like to revert to the "glory" days when things were free and nice and blah. Yeah, okay. Back then, my grandfather would've got shot for painting his own house. And then the house would've been burned down.

Anyway, that's why I don't care for it.

I appreciate all of that, and thanks. It isn't what libertarianism represents to me, but obviously the message is open to interpretation.

You're free not to care for democracy. Or this democratic republic or whatever. I don't really care. I'm not tied to any particular philosophy or political mode of thinking because I find aligning yourself with one party or group sets you back and prevents you from growing. I like to draw from all of them. And while there are some things about libertarianism I can appreciate, ultimately, I just don't care for it. I don't really mind, tbh. Celia can speak for me about 80% of the time for all I care.

Well, I appreciate that you're a free thinker. I really do. I wish my son was more that way and less of the whole "fuck it, it makes no difference" mentality.

That said, someone else speaking for you isn't nearly as good as you speaking for yourself, and I mean that.