I deleted it. If you'd like to discuss the merits of defending convicted serial child rapists, I'd prefer it not to be in a perfectly good thread about interesting philosophical websites.

Okay, good, so can someone please restore my comment to this thread then?

Just so you know, only @jamalrob and @Baden can see/restore deleted stuff.

Okay, then could jamalrob or Baden please restore my comment to this feedback thread?

A friendly warning. If you find yourself defending convicted serial child rapists, please expect that you will shortly no longer be able to do so here. — StreetlightX

>:O Give me a break mate. I know nothing of this case or the people involved, but according to you, everyone who disagrees with the official reading of an event is wrong and must be ostracized. Because if the justice system decided he is a rapist, then it really follows that he is a rapist :s Ha ha - how funny. That's what Stalin used to do too. — Agustino

From here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2632/philosophy-websites/

Thank you.

So SLX, could you now please address the comment? Why is it right for you to threaten to ban someone for saying that the decision of a court, with regards to a particular man, was or may be wrong?

And I don't care if that man was accused of being a rapist, or whatever. That's a red herring.

Thanks for your opinion, with which I disagree.

I've just noticed the whole child rapist aspect of that discussion now. It shouldn't be there as far as I'm concerned as it's off-topic.

Thanks for your opinion, with which I disagree. — StreetlightX

I didn't ask you whether you disagreed or not. Can you please answer the question?

Yep, off-topic, so it was the right decision to put a stop to it in that discussion.

I agree, now let's move onto the real subject, which was SLX's decision to threaten another member with a ban.

I've deleted that stuff for being off-topic.

If that was the meaning then he was wrong to say it, in my opinion, but if by "here" he meant in that discussion, then he was right.

I've deleted that stuff for being off-topic. — Michael

Yeah I think that was a good thing. Quite a few discussions end up getting derailed or sidetracked with multiple off-topic comments that go off on a tangent.

(Y)



I think it would depend on the circumstances. Defense of convicted pedophiles and rapists depending on how it was presented could make you look like an apologist for them and qualify you to be "obviously unsuited to the forum".

Defense of convicted pedophiles and rapists depending on how it was presented could make you look like an apologist for them and qualify to be "obviously unsuited to the forum". — Baden

The only way that would work is if you defended the actions of which they are accused, somehow seeking to make them excusable. But this wasn't the case here, where it is simply claimed that someone was falsely convicted.

Now it would be appreciable if SLX could answer himself rather than having us imagine what he is thinking.

I'm giving you a general guideline as to how I would approach the issue and speculating that Street may have been thinking along those lines. But, sure, he can speak for himself.

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

To this list one can add, with no mental gymnastics, serial child rapist sympathizers. It's pretty clear cut, and yeah, I don't consider the topic worthy of debate.

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

To this list one can add, with no mental gymnastics, serial child rapist sympathizers. It's pretty clear cut, and yeah, I don't consider the topic worthy of debate. — StreetlightX

If you think a person was wrongly accused and convicted of raping a child, are you a "child rapist sympathizer"? Yes or no?

The article linked to was a conspiratorial hack piece. Anything thinking it worthy of discussion is nothing other than just such a sympathizer. I'm not discussing this further.

The article linked to was a conspiratorial hack piece. Anything thinking it worthy of debate is nothing other than just such a sympathizer. I'm not discussing this further. — StreetlightX

That's not what I've asked, I asked you a yes or no question, so can I please have an answer to what I am asking you, and not to things that I've never inquired about?

No you may not.

Once again, my concern is this:

If you think a person was wrongly accused and convicted of raping a child, are you a "child rapist sympathizer"? Yes or no? — Agustino

No you may not. — StreetlightX

Why not? What's wrong with my question?

I think this has been answered well enough, so I'm closing the discussion.