Weeman wrote:
thoreau wrote:
In regards to the thread that was on ickes this is my personal view of what happened and what sean ment by his statement...
A thread was started with the op stating that he had paedophilic thoughts that he had not and did not intend to act on and it was his belief that having thoughts alone was not wrong - it was in acting on those thoughts that was wrong.
The thread descended into a lot of abuse towards the op and a lot of people asked for it to be closed but it was left open in order to protect the op's free speech.
No other poster admitted to paedophilic thoughts nor suggested that acting on those thoughts was acceptable and the majority view was that having any sort of paedophilic thoughts was wrong and those having them should face consequences.
The thread was eventually closed due to the abusive nature of the posts within and sean made the statement that we should be more open to these sorts of topics.
My belief (and I am no supporter of seans) is that he felt we should be more open to discussing the topics rather than just shutting down and throwing abuse. Not that he feels people should be more open to those with paedophilic thoughts or to the thoughts themselves.
I would also like to say that I can in some respects understand why tpv don't go near bill maloney who undoubtably is doing the best he can to get info out there - the video posted is described as 'bill maloney commiting treason' - remember that tpv's priority is staying on air - much like any mainstream news source and as such they cannot open themselves up to libel nor press certain 'celebs' or well known figures on anything for fear that they will cease to attract said people to appearing on their programmes.
My personal belief is that this is the root cause of why they have not addressed such issues in the manner their viewership expected. Tpv have not established themselves nor attracted enough financial support to be able to make waves.
I was a moderator during the time that thread was posted and can confirm that (the embolden) was not only Seans view, but every mods view also, and for the reasoning you stated.
That particular thread got opened and closed maybe four or five times in total.
Unlike so many other supposed 'team' decisions that were/are purported to be team decisions (when in fact it was usually the decision of one or two 'higher ups' what stayed or got deleted) this was the exception. We deliberated constantly and everyone got their say.
I wanted that thread left open and was an active poster iirc. Painful as it was, I actually wanted to find out where these thoughts form and most importantly why.
Trolls and asshats put an end to that.
The soap box and high horse brigade were out to vent their disgust at the mere thought of it being a valid point for discussion/investigation.
That's why I get a bit pissed off seeing this 'apologist' label getting thrown around.
So, I want to hear or read somebody else's view on a subject and make a further enquiry - suddenly I'm an apologist or a sympathiser? It's such a backwards way of conducting a conversation - it stunts conversation and therefore learning and is just the PC way of forcing your opinion onto others and an effective bullying tactic.
I think it was Daddy Feather that wrote this:
To depict something doesn't mean you necessarily endorse it.
and it has many qualities. Think about it.
It appears the case that if you can't outright accuse someone of being something (a paedophile - a racist etcetera) the next best 'damning' thing you can do is label them an apologist a sympathiser or a NAN!
What happened to letting people post and allowing them to either raise valid points or dig their own grave? What is achieved by shutting down one side of the process? Bear in mind this is what TPV and DIF are doing and people don't like it.
It is quite refreshing to read some of the posts in this thread, particularly the one above, given I'd never even have guessed that anyone might have attempted to raise such a topic over 'there'.
I agree, the only way to better understand an issue, and perhaps come up with some reasonable solutions, is to have open and frank discussion about it: something the good people of this forum have always strived to achieve.
Our current societal approach to the issue is not ideal, but it is at least a start. I believe Marina has already posted re. what can/may happen regarding adolescents etc. as in the eyes of the law, this issue is still very black and white. It is an area though that I think may warrant some further discussion, particularly in light of recent changes to legislation, and perhaps a seperate thread.
I never saw the thread in question, though from what I can glean, the op (if not just for a laugh) was actually seeking some guidance. It is unfortunate that it panned out the way it apparently did, but then, perhaps the op, if genuine, might have thought about posting what he posted on a slightly different platform.
I have no thoughts on TPV whatsoever, but just wanted to say how proud I am of our own little forum. It is indeed testament to the fact that a little bit of respect goes a very, very long way.
