Re: Born Pedo

May as well respond to both, lol. Anyway, Dante: "it isn't a choice, as you would have us believe"

Since I say straw man too much lately, shall I say scarecrow? Seriously, where the hell did I say it was a choice? I don't recall this. I might have factored choice in as some vague method of input into sexuality, but choice certainly is not the whole of sexuality, as you would have people believe I would have you believe. Now that's semantics for ya!

I do not believe 'preference' implies voluntariness. To me, preference and orientation are synonyms. I think all the gays out there fumbling with that are being silly nitpickers. I have a preference for chocolate milk/ice cream over plain/vanilla. I didn't choose to like the taste more, I just like it more and I prefer it because I like it more. You might call my 'chocolate oriented'.

See my point? Anyway, your contradicting that scarecrow is of no concern to me, once again I agree with something sensible they've written. Since you also seem to, you may wish to chime in on another thread where someone is totally bashing them. I forget who.

'Like inborn' doesn't mean something should be called inborn. Cancer also happens without our volition, it is not inborn, but there are tendencies to have structures more vulnerable to it, as well as inherited things like lifestyle/diet which may affect biological development. However, we can adopt lifestyle choices which lower the chances or increase the chances of our having cancerous cells or being able to naturally reject cancer from taking over our bodies.

Consider the complexity of that issue and apply it to sexuality. Now, this is not a comparison of severity, because sexuality's not inherantly destructive like cancer is, but at the same time, excessive fetishism is very odd and doesn't make for a health person in my opinion. The symptoms include ignorance of other aspects of things which can be appreciated, and undue focus upon something arbitrary, and in the case of youth, tragically temporary. If that takes predominance over the value of personality (as it does in many jerks) then it is also antisocial, and if acted upon, potentially socially destructive.

I am not engaging in literalism to be obstinate, but rather, explaining that the criteria being used to dismiss something as a 'campaign' is inaccurate.

Using common definitions while 'being able to' admit others exist is negligent and careless for others. In my opinion, it requires intention to be able to choose to talk this way, and for what purpose, I don't know, so I theorize.

What I mean by software/security not being an issue, is that giving tips on it is a non-issue, a non-protector, if people are not sufficiently motivated to use them. That is the purpose of warning, to motivate people to take precaution, not to simply mention that precautions exist and give a vague idea of why which people won't even understand the importance of. This is not enough of a warning, is what I'm saying.

There are measures short of kicking everyone off the board which can be taken, although doing that does seem like a good temporary idea to take so everyone can go through a more stringently moderated application process prior to readmittance.

You say the mods remove 'compromising' stuff, however that is simply not enough to protect people. Stuff can remain up for short periods that way, enough for them to be 'quoted'. Furthermore, stuff like people calling themselves pedophiles is not removed, nor should it, as many people may have a legitimate reason to call themselves that. Rather, silly things like removing links to youtube vids or 'chan' sites are removed. Those are things which are not personally compromising, but rather, their presence risks compromising the BOARD.

So removing that stuff doesn't protect people, it's a good thing for the board but not for its posters (safe for safeguarding their freedom of expression, but nothing for their safety). Simply interacting with people on an individual basis, making sure they made a smart choice, and making sure they understand the terminology, and making sure they understand what has happened to people and what people are willing to do or twist the truths of.

That's really all, and it's not much, so I don't understand why it's not being done. I'd even do it myself if they'd give me the job.

I am also not giving 'setting the risk to zero' as a benchmark. Again, maybe you're misinterpreting this, but I'm talking about dramatically reducing the chances of people making mistakes through adequately difficult hoops to jump through prior to registration. Registration isn't instant to begin with, nor is chat room access (which is actually much safer than posting on the board) so I don't see why delays would be a big deal.

Calling someone negligent IS an insult, yeah. All involved in the negligence, as in, all people with the power to increase security who do not. Is insulting competance/caring bad now? After all, PJ is insulted for a lack of competance and caring all the time, and they're not the only organization vulnerable to this. Anyone is vulnerable to not caring or being incompetant. Personally, while I do label this issue with these terms, they're minor compared to other organizations, but that doesn't mean they can't be improved.

Now, I do not accuse 'all' of baiting human shields. I'm only accusing the people (if any) who are doing this. If you're not doing it, you're not being insulted. I insult anyone who does this knowingly, or who suspects that they may have some aspect of this motivation and not be outraged by the possibility of such a motivation in themself. Or, if you will, any who do it unknowingly and do not have the self-analytical skills or overconfidence to even treat it as a possibility that they would do it.

I've never accused all of doing it, or even a sizeable amount, or even an amount at all, nor an individual. Your concluding that I am accusing people directly of this seems to me to be intentionally antagonistic, or else, negligent of proper means of assessing others, like I possess. As you can see, how I'm judging you for accusing me like this is directly related to how I judge this issue and those who evade accountability for it.

Normally, I wouldn't mind people who don't take extra steps to protect people, but here it is not tolerable, because this is a community being painted as a place for people to share sensitive aspects of themself, where people can avoid hatred and persecution. People who are often depressed or unstable or lonely, and knowing this, precautions should be taken to safeguard their persons when they are invited here.

Your excerpt is interesting, and I agree with it, but not the analogy you are drawing with it. Those warning are responsible if their warning is rejected if their warning is half-assed and doesn't address the fact that people think they're being warned about one thing (being a MAA, often called a pedo) and are 'really' (though they don't know it) being warned about being called a psych/criminal pedo. They're being warned about the 'common' use of the word without knowing that people will paint it, so they could evade that danger.

So stop evading the fact that more could be done, more could be said, because it could, and I've said what that is!