28 Apr 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitObviously me.
The law is not always right?! Who decided?
Thanx.
P-
However, at the Nuremberg trials one of the conclusions was that every individual has a personal responsibility to judge laws and orders and decide in which to participate. This so that an individual no longer can say: "I was just following orders."
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2Take my word for it, many avatars have been removed, as well as links. (Even Admins have done this, so the mods know they are on the right track when it comes up.)
No. What's wrong with nudity (I was born that way, how about you)? What links nudity to the ToS? Right, nothing.
P-
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by shavixmirLet me start by saying that you are partially right. But that also means you are partially wrong.
Your spouting rhetoric with your silly little list, which avoids all of the issues I've pointed out:
1. The law is not always right.
2. It's unhealthy to blindly accept legislation.
3. There is nothing being wriiten or shown here which 13 year olds don't see or hear anyways.
4. There's nothing unhealthy about subjects such as porn and racism, in so f ...[text shortened]... u is spouting rhetoric.
It's an easy defense, but ultimately non-constructive in nature.
1. The law is not always right.
True, but RHP is not where you fight that out. The owners of RHP must uphold the law. If they fail to comply the bear the burden. If you don't like a law fight in the proper place. That is where ever legislation is made concerning you. If you don't agree with posted speed limits do you speed in order to change them?
2. It's unhealthy to blindly accept legislation.
True, but there is a time and place for civil disobedience. You should question laws, but that is not a green light to disobey them.
3. There is nothing being wriiten or shown here which 13 year olds don't see or hear anyways.
I don't think this applies to all 13 year olds. There should be havens that are free from questionable topics. This site would like to promote itself as one of those places, so they enforce rules of what they see as fit or unfit for public consumption.
4. There's nothing unhealthy about subjects such as porn and racism, in so far that they could be unhealthier than violence and moon landings.
In my opinion and yours true. The difference is I would exercise moderation on when they are discussed. All gaurenteed right come with a price tag of responsibility. Because I can swear doesn't mean I am always with in my right to do so. Others have rights that affect my rights.
5. It's healthier for children to face issues such as sexuality, racism and politics in an environment with adults and various perspectives on the issues at hand.
This may be true, but once again it doesn't apply to all. some don't want to discuss it. Others may not be ready. Would you like the grand dragon discussing racism with your child, just because they are in the same chess site? Some topics are for parents to discuss with their children. There arer also kids that are not ready to fully form opinions because they lack experience to formulate those judgments. This goes back to having a time and place for those discussions, and RHP has taken a stand that they don't want to provide that place. They can make that choice for whatever reason moral or legal they choose. They burden is not on them to say why.
6. There are hard figures backing points 2, 3 and 5.
This is an argument of eggs are good, eggs are bad. Its who collects the data and why they collected the data. Remember Mengle collected data for a reason and convinced a country it was accurate. All data has bias. You didn't provide citations to back your statement. I'll give you data on why you should give me your money, but you might not agree with it.
7. Language can't be offensive.
Wrong. Language meant to be offensive will be offensive.
So i don't think you are completely off base in your argument. I just think there is a time and a place for all discussion. RHP and Russ in particular has drawn a line in the sand, and they ask that you respect it. He is owner of the site and gets help form volunteers to enforce it. I don't mean to disrespect you by saying this , but if you have issues with western morality and want to discuss it you can bring it to the church, your elected representative, if that gets you nowhere run for public office and make the changes you want. Trying to change the world using a chess site forum is an exercise in futility. Russ only has limited power and I'm guessing no incentive for global change. I am only speculating on Russ's
motivation but he has posted his views on the legal stuff in the past.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI understand that there is a line, often a fine one, but I don't take your word for it if you generalise and over-simplify by referring to 'nudity', without including sexual innuendo or obscenity. Violence, racism, offensive language, and even plain stupidity are far worse in my opinion if we want to protect kids.
Take my word for it, many avatars have been removed, as well as links. (Even Admins have done this, so the mods know they are on the right track when it comes up.)
P-
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mephisto2Your logic of looking for worse behavior will eventually justify all behavior. The site drew the line in the sand. If there is ambiguity they rely on mods to make a decision. If you are unhappy with the placement of the line you enter some really shaky ground. RHP must stay compliant with the law. In order to do so they must set boundaries. Would you like to cross the boundary to see what is on the other side? Think of what is your motivation for encroaching on the line and be empathetic and think what Russ's motivation for changing the line is. Is making you happy worth the added stress of compliance with in the laws that apply to RHP? Is the net gain a negative with added legal expenses?
I understand that there is a line, often a fine one, but I don't take your word for it if you generalise and over-simplify by referring to 'nudity', without including sexual innuendo or obscenity. Violence, racism, offensive language, and even plain stupidity are far worse in my opinion if we want to protect kids.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensTake it to Debates, Spanky.
Let me start by saying that you are partially right. But that also means you are partially wrong.
[b]1. The law is not always right.
True, but RHP is not where you fight that out. The owners of RHP must uphold the law. If they fail to comply the bear the burden. If you don't like a law fight in the proper place. That is where ever legis ...[text shortened]... Russ's
motivation but he has posted his views on the legal stuff in the past.[/b]
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensWhat "law" are you referring to? Please be specific.
Your logic of looking for worse behavior will eventually justify all behavior. The site drew the line in the sand. If there is ambiguity they rely on mods to make a decision. If you are unhappy with the placement of the line you enter some really shaky ground. RHP must stay compliant with the law. In order to do so they must set boundaries. Would ...[text shortened]... iance with in the laws that apply to RHP? Is the net gain a negative with added legal expenses?
28 Apr 08
BTW, the TOS states this under Section 3 - Registration Obligations
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract
As far as I know, 13 year olds aren't of legal age to form a binding contract in either the US, UK or anywhere else I know of. So what is all this concern about keeping the content of this site acceptable to the tender sensibilities of people who really shouldn't be using it according to the TOS?
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSure, but where is the line?
Then change the TOS which, at present, bans posting of "obscene" materials, not mere nudity (partial nudity in this case). I hope you understand that not all nudity is "obscene".
Someone posts a butt
next guy posts boobs
next guy posts a set of shaven nadds
someone decides underage nudes are 'art'
each user tries to up the anti to figure out WHERE the line is drawn
To avoid 'deciding' what is good for RHP, none is allowed.
Hope YOU can understand this.
P-