User talk:Abd/Temp talk

How is it trolling to point out that Tisane has child porn on his webshite?
Have you looked at the link I provided? It is there. People should be aware of the kinds of material this man indulges in. Tisa'e gallery of little girls (including two naked ones) view at your own risk, & obviously NSFW 80.237.226.75 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, have a little patience, troll. The link has been added, because it is relevant. He collected those images for an obvious purpose, and if you read the page and know Tisane, it is not to pursue prurient interest. It is to show what images are legal, though he's thereby exposed to legal risk, another story. The text shows that he is not a pedophile. He's actually pretty normal, as to his sexual interests, except that most men do not normally publicly disclose this kind of thinking. That's what is abnormal. Yes, there is one photo showing two nude girls, under age. Tisane knows the law. Those photos are not child porn, and he explains why. BON, are you aroused by that photo? If so, I suggest you get professional help. Seriously. --Abd (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These edits by 80.237.226.75 weren’t legitimate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tor exit nodes are not static users. 80.237.226.75 is a tor exit node - ref . Edits from april are not the same person. Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a pattern of edits from at least one of the IPs involved in recent activity. However, I'm not wasting more time on this now. I have real children and real responsibilities. --Abd (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Child porn" is a well-established legal category. The page contained, was collected to show, what is called -- by law enforcement professionals, and there was a link to this on Tisane's page -- "child erotica," a catchall term. "Child erotica" is a general category that covers anything that anyone might think possibly arousing or sexually provocative in some way, but that does not meet the criteria for child pornography, which are strict. After all, people get tossed in the slammer for mere possession of child pornography, the category better be clear!

Yet nude images of children, per se, are not pornographic, and this is totally clear. Nudist sites have many, without legal consequence.

A collection of child erotica can be legally hazardous under some conditions, but I won't describe those here. Tisane's collection does not satisfy the conditions, but sometimes zealous prosecutors can prosecute anyway.

Hipocrite claimed to have filed a complaint with the FBI, through a site at cybertip.org. To file a complaint on that site, one must select a category for the report. The only one that remotely relates to the Tisane page would be "Child pornography (possession, manufacture, and distribution)," and the page gives the definition when you select that option:


 * Child pornography is defined as a visual depiction of a minor under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct (18 U.S.C. 2256). It is a federal crime to possess, manufacture and/or distribute child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

None of the images on that page satisfy that definition. If it was filed, it will go nowhere. Filing such a report fraudulently or in error is not likely to produce any consequence for the filer, but it does waste the time of people who work to protect children. That's real damage. My point in raising the issue of reporting was to address the hypocrisy of claiming that Tisane's material was "child pornography," and that he was a risk to children, without taking action to protect children, but only action to ban the user here. That was aimed solely at protecting the reputation of RationalWiki, i.e., looking good.

The recent debate over Tisane, unfortunately, focused on whether or not RW should host "adovacy of pedophilia." Tisane never advocated pedophilia. What he did was to question the evidentiary basis for extreme harm from all forms of child-adult sexual relations. Nearly everyone who participated in the discussion *assumed* that Tisane was advocating pedophilia, without specific and cogent evidence ever being asserted.

Tisane is a libertarian and generally dislikes or distrusts state intervention in private affairs, so, is adult-child sex a private affair? The rational justification for state interference would be major harm, but it is a common problem in statutory law that the categories identify harm, based on matters that are defined in advance, as representing harm *in general*, and then sometimes the only actual harm is prosecution. Drug laws would be a common example of concern to libertarians. Likewise laws regarding statutory rape (particularly in boundary situations).

Tisane stumbled across a long-term RW battleground, whether or not RW should host offensive points of view. Nearly all RationalWikians who came across the discussion *assumed* that this was the issue. For them, it was. But the fundamental claim was never addressed. Nobody ever pointed to specific evidence that Tisane was, for example, a pedophile. It was assumed that only a pedophile would raise the questions. It was assumed that anyone who would ask the questions was advocating pedophilia.

In fact, for law to be reconciled with reason, it's necessary to ask the questions Tisane asked. He was asking about relative harm. A response that defines the harm as, effectively, infinite, unthinkable, does not allow for actual balance. I've known many sexually abused men and women. For nearly all of them, it was not as harmful as, say, being murdered, or being maimed or tortured. That is not at all to minimize the harm of sexual abuse, and "sexual abuse" exists, itself, in degrees, as is sometimes recognized at law.


 * How harmful is it?* That's a question, one that I would hope, for society's decisions, would be based on evidence, not hysteria. Tisane did not answer the question, he raised it, and began to collect arguments.

Toward the end of the discussion, a new page from Tisane's wiki was cited by reference. It was a poem that begins with, "If it bleeds, it breeds." It gets worse. When I first saw that, it looked like this was the smoking gun. I don't think that it influenced the bulk of the comments, but it may have turned the tide. What was this page? Was it an expression of Tisane's point of view?

It was inconsistent with his discussion of himself on the Pedophilia page. He is not a pedophile. So I asked him.

Those were comments he had collected on the topic, from internet searches, researching the issues he covered on the Pedophilia page. I checked this. Those phrases are easily findable.

The first phrase, that defines menstruation as the onset of fertility, is simple fact. Many cultures have accepted that demarcation for marriageability. See Wikipedia:Marriageable age#History and social attitudes.

The rest of the phrases actually, on the face, would define the age for onset of sexual activity at birth ("pee") or teething ("chew") or the ability to count. This is not pedophilia, it was, in the context of invention, deliberately outrageous banter. It probably does not represent advocacy from anyone. But definitely not Tisane. Tisane was willing to explore the limits, in terms of his own thinking, but never went anywhere near that far.

Some people believe that no consensual sexual activity is harmful, regardless of age. I'm not one of them. In fact, I an not in favor of sexual activity with others outside of marriage. Now, there's a minority position, if we look at what people actually think and do! --Abd (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)