What content should be censored from the politics forum?

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "politics" of pedophilia. The abuse of children is not "politics". Either admit the truth of that or that you have no moral qualms about adults having sex with children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there are politics surrounding pedophilia, you're just having a blind knee-jerk response. Our media is very good at programming this response, as we saw when the Brass-eye pedophile special (satirical comedy) aired in the UK in 2001. Chris Morris is a comedy genius who understood that the media simply cannot handle rationally discussing anything to do with children and went to great lengths to point it out in a humourous way.

The program itself was utterly hilarous if you could see past the subject matter, which of course many people could not. No children were harmed, and in fact no discussion of violating children occured IN ANY WAY on the program, but people still lost it, there were 3000 complaints, many from people who never saw the program.

The home office government minister at the time, Beverly Huges lost it the day after in the media. She attacked the content of the program without having ever seen it. There were 3000 complaints. However after the matter was investigated nothing was done, the program was fine and didn't even come close to discussing anything "over the line".

To get back to the original point, what if a 17 year old has sex with a 15.7 year old and gets sent to prison as a pedophile? Is this no different from a 40 year old having sex with a 12 year old? Of course it's utterly utterly different. The former is expected, the latter is a horrendus violation.

It is a touchy subject and one that needs to be handled with care, but if you can't see that there are some issues worth discussing then you're being blinkered IMO. I doubt I'll partake further in this discussion, and I might add just to be clear for you knee-jerk responders out there that pedophilia is disgusting and I in no way condone it at all. Although I conceed that the 17 year old with 15.7 year old is a much greyer area that the other obviously more insane and criminal acts.

[AngryCola]

By the way, this thread isn't locked because of the criticism of moderation or the discussion of what should be allowed. It's locked because it was clear to me this was already becoming a thread about pedophilia, and, for now, that's not something I'm going to allow.

My reasoning for this decision can be found a few posts up.

Just to be sure, I will contact Mat about this issue. If my instincts are wrong about this not being something 2+2 wants on its site, I'll be happy to admit my mistake and unlock the threads.

**Yet another EDIT**

It's not fair of me to lock this thread just because some people wanted to turn it into a discussion about another topic. While the OP did link to a couple of threads related to pedophilia, it's clear that he didn't want his thread to turn into a discussion about that particular issue.

Therefore, I'm reversing my decision and unlocking this thread. It may be unusual for a mod to admit making a mistake, but I'm already willing to admit that I made one by locking this thread

But until I speak with Mat, I don't want to see pedophilia related discussion, and that includes what I'm seeing in behemoth's latest thread. Hopefully you guys understand this is not an easy issue for me, and I'm only concerned about it because of 2+2s image and T&C.

[Cyrus]

Attention-grabbing headline, no ? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The only ones who wish to debate the subject are ones who at the very least wish to have sex with minor adolescents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I should probably express my own personal position about the subject but I get the feeling that this would degenerate into a "loyalty test" : i.e. before we are allowed to discuss something, we must give assurance that we are against it! But this puts a damper on discussions about "sensitive" or "controversial" issues.

And defeats the objectives of curious minds. I would very much like to be able to discuss a few things with, say, Adolph Eichmann. I would not require that he sign some kind of apologetic note before we do.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a matter of "political debate" but of basic human decency towards children.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more than that. May I invoke Spinoza again? "Not to laugh, not to cry, not to get angry. But to understand."

I believe that we owe it to ourselves to try to understand the inner workings of the human beast.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think nothing should be locked or banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much agree with this. The only that probably should be locked or banned are those things which could expose the owners of the 2+2 forums to legal action. And of course the owners can and should ban whatever they simply feel is inappropriate.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I have no real issues with Cola locking the thread based on his interpretation of the T&C. I am merely offering my personal opinion on what I consider ban/lock worthy on a internet discussion forum.

[TomCollins]

BluffThis, why is 18 the magic age? Why not 17 or 19?

[elwoodblues]

Would it be a matter of political debate to say that all states should make the age of consent 18? How about 17? Discussing whether something should or should not be legal is clearly a political discussion, even if everyone agrees with your notion that the root of the issue is basic human decency toward children.

[ QUOTE ]
And the only ones who wish to debate the subject are ones who at the very least wish to have sex with minor adolescents.

[/ QUOTE ]

No true at all. Just like people who wish to discuss making drugs legal aren't all users. People who think it makes sense to lower the drinking age aren't all underage drinkers.