Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! [2007-05-18]

Godwin's Law - what a crock of baloney. It just bamboozles me how idiots can say

Some Superstitious Idiots Out There wrote:

Oh, this guy mentioned the Nazis when he compared a guy with them, Godwin's Law, end of thread.

As if just mentioning the Nazis automatically means the end of the thread, how stupid is that? Superstition is a fallacy I would not expect of Internet users (besides all those horoscope sites). And yet, here are people who hide behind a false law in order to avoid being compared to Nazis. Maybe there is some truth behind the claims that those people really are acting as cruelly/stupidly/inhumanely as Nazis, but do not want others to know, so they invoke a piece of crap law. A good example is of course those who argue paedophilia is OK, doesn't harm anyone. Acting nonchalantly to the plight of a weak and defenseless section of society (i.e. children) is easily comparable to what the Nazis did against the Gypsies, Jews and the mentally impaired. I am disgusted that this happens, that people treat the Nazis as bogeymen, never to be mentioned for fear they will get you in the night. Now of course I realise that the casual mention of Nazis can degrade and trivialise the nightmare that was the Holocaust, but that is no excuse to act as uncaring as the Nazis, only to hide behind a superstition.

So, my message to anyone who thought Godwin's Law should have been applied (two people so far have voiced this), is that you are doing a disservice to the victims of the Nazis. By hiding behind it, you are cheapening their pain. By refusing to accept that maybe you are acting as nonchalantly as they did, you make it clear that you are exactly like them - never accepting responsibility for your actions.

Zac wrote:

STOP comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. The latter is a fetish, the former is not.

I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but I was just curious as to why pedophilia is regarded as a fetish and homosexuality is not?

Gays are attracted to people of the same gender. They, like straights, have sex with consenting adults. Pedophiles get aroused by young, prepubescent children. A man who is sexually attracted to young boys is not gay; he's a pedophile, just like a man who is attracted to young girls.

I get the feeling you are missing the point of Godwin's Law, Moros.

Godwin’s Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[3] that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s Law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as “Quirk’s Exception”).

However, Godwin’s Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

kyokun703 wrote:

Gays are attracted to people of the same gender. They, like straights, have sex with consenting adults. Pedophiles get aroused by young, prepubescent children. A man who is sexually attracted to young boys is not gay; he's a pedophile, just like a man who is attracted to young girls.

Thank you, kyokun703, for explaining the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Now, could you please explain to me what it is that makes the one a "psychological disorder" and the other not?

The American Psychiatric Association, which puts out the DSM IV. The DSM IV is the official medical manual for all recognized mental health disorders.

In response to the people crying about how Nymphet isn't porn and we're all misrepresenting it, I'll go ahead then and say "Nymphet is not porn. It simply overtly sexualizes 8-year old children in order to attract an audience that is sexually attracted to young children."

I guess your personal morality defines whether or not that's more or less despicable than straight up animated kiddie porn but I choose to lump them all together as gross and wrong.

Is there anyone defending Nymphet that doesn't like lolicon material but simply is arguing from a "free speech thought police" perspective? I think at one point everyone arguing in favor of this has revealed that they like it; am I wrong on that?

kyokun703 wrote:

The American Psychiatric Association, which puts out the DSM IV. The DSM IV is the official medical manual for all recognized mental health disorders.

The obvious question being would you immediately shun gays as you might do with pedophiliacs if the APA decided to classify homosexuality as a mental health disorder OR would you immediately accept pedophiliacs if they no longer classified it as such? If you would say no to either, then obviously that is just a made up reason for accepting one over the other.

Obviously the pedos are gonna say it's ok to be a pedo, and obviously there are people who say it's wrong to be homosexual. Is acceptance or rejection for one or the other based on some arbitrary standard that CAN change, or is it based on some static standard?

kyokun703 wrote:

The American Psychiatric Association, which puts out the DSM IV. The DSM IV is the official medical manual for all recognized mental health disorders.

The obvious question being would you immediately shun gays as you might do with pedophiliacs if the APA decided to classify homosexuality as a mental health disorder OR would you immediately accept pedophiliacs if they no longer classified it as such?

Remove Gender Identity Disorder From DSM

By Richard A. Isay, M.D.

APA removed homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973; with the 1987 publication of DSM-III-R, ego-dystonic homosexuality was deleted as well. Thus, homosexuality is no longer considered an illness.

I get the feeling you are missing the point of Godwin's Law, Moros.

So you stick your tongue out at me. Well, may I suggest you read what Godwin's Law is about on Wikipedia (there was a link in a previous post).

I don't feel people wanting to clarify a point is invalid. Is there nudity in this manga? Is there sex? If not, then it's not porn. That's just the facts, morality and opinions aside. It is not porn and it isn't unreasonable for fans of it to what you to clarify that point Zac. You did clarify your post but it seems like it was pulling teeth. That said yes it is still gross and morally wrong. However, simply saying it's porn is not valid and ANYONE saying that should really pay attention. If you CONSIDER it porn then fine, but make it clear that's your OPINION and not fact.

But c'mon, defending lollicon is bad enough, now peoplw are saying there's nothing wrong with being a pedophile?! God help us. To the lolli defenders, do you understand the word illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is a form of rape? I do not see how anyone who considers themself a human being can defend child rape, its beyond disgusting.

I don't like pornography of any kind, and Nymphet seems a bit tasteless, but I am not willing to call this immoral. I am holding to individualism and free markets for the time being, and I believe people who wish to read this have almost as much right to do so as children have the right to be protected from molestation. Whether it was a good idea to license this, I would have to agree with Zac that the answer is no. It's too risky and tasteless. Just to let people know where I am coming from I do consider child pornography and erotic child modeling to be immoral.

Quote:

But c'mon, defending lollicon is bad enough, now peoplw are saying there's nothing wrong with being a pedophile?! God help us. To the lolli defenders, do you understand the word illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is a form of rape? I do not see how anyone who considers themself a human being can defend child rape, its beyond disgusting.

Pedophiles and child molesters are not necessarily the same thing.

There really is nothing wrong with being a pedophile if you just keep it to yourself and stick to masturbating to fantasies about children without acquiring human child porn or raping little kids. (Not that I’d know about what being a pedo for real kids is like though, since I formed this opinion without any actual experience in that area. I think real little kids are boogery monsters, which is why I don’t babysit.) Like you said, it's just a fetish, and there's nothing wrong with having an unusual fetish if you're responsible about it.