tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post2636044151668775701..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 979: Old ProblemsCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6745923956423517482011-12-05T13:37:09.591-08:002011-12-05T13:37:09.591-08:00blogger has a poorly designed and overzealous spam...blogger has a poorly designed and overzealous spam protectionrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-50728075623933549492011-12-05T13:21:21.581-08:002011-12-05T13:21:21.581-08:00Just curious, why did you erase Malignancy's p...Just curious, why did you erase Malignancy's post?Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-78430772281053788882011-11-28T13:07:02.722-08:002011-11-28T13:07:02.722-08:00this is because you are a moronthis is because you are a moronrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54838003828082647702011-11-28T11:43:29.000-08:002011-11-28T11:43:29.000-08:00But what if people find humour in what you call th...But what if people find humour in what you call the 'GOOMH-bait'? Surely humour is subjective and if a person does find it funny then it is a joke? <br /><br />Also, I have no idea how it could ever be described as dishonest. Saying that to me is just melodramatic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-17994325164191324682011-11-27T12:23:40.802-08:002011-11-27T12:23:40.802-08:00Tell 'em, Rob.Tell 'em, Rob.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032765137272340262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76297315687927591642011-11-26T17:21:30.357-08:002011-11-26T17:21:30.357-08:00GOOMH-bait is suspect because it replaces actual h...GOOMH-bait is suspect because it replaces actual humor with the hope that people will identify with the problem. it's not a joke; it's just saying 'man has anyone else ever run into this' and then people say 'YOU ARE SO BRILLIANT I HAVE DONE THIS ALSO'<br /><br />it's suspect because at best it's cheap, and at worst it's outright dishonestrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-25551708469486586362011-11-26T16:14:47.724-08:002011-11-26T16:14:47.724-08:00what's wrong with GOOMH? why do people here se...what's wrong with GOOMH? why do people here seem so against it?<br /><br />979 would obviously not be worth posting if nobody else experienced the problem he's talking about.<br /><br />i just don't get the cynicism in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-57400512538711649402011-11-23T17:14:05.681-08:002011-11-23T17:14:05.681-08:00some things are self-evidentsome things are self-evidentrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-51281289038085972332011-11-23T13:19:46.603-08:002011-11-23T13:19:46.603-08:00Oh, the wonderful arguments by Rob! are back again...Oh, the wonderful arguments by Rob! are back again:<br /><br />"Things are as I say they are, and if you disagree, you are dumb".<br /><br />Not an ounce of sense, but what a solid-rock argument, because... yep, because otherwise you're dumb.<br /><br />The comic was kinda funny, which doesn't happen too often lately.Nielsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-26384974048024054612011-11-23T00:52:31.159-08:002011-11-23T00:52:31.159-08:00"
I don't know what the current procedure..."<br />I don't know what the current procedure is when child pornography is discovered in someone's possession, but I would hope it would not be a criminal procedure (assuming no children have been harmed by this particular paedophile at this point). It seems an excellent opportunity for intervention and help to protect children and the paedophile."<br /><br />The standard procedure is jail time, and not a trivial amount. The demand for child pornography is at least part of the reason that it is produced (the other part being that the producer of it finds it fun maybe? I don't know what the balance between these two is) so the idea is that by being part of the demand they are essentially inflicting harm on the childAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84372141406388809962011-11-22T23:30:42.798-08:002011-11-22T23:30:42.798-08:00Or somebody who is exactly the way you like to pre...Or somebody who is exactly the way you like to pretend you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-32840616373224472752011-11-22T18:28:48.111-08:002011-11-22T18:28:48.111-08:00"I apologize for asking this, but I honestly ..."I apologize for asking this, but I honestly can't find an explanation on the site. What does GOOMH stand for?"<br /><br />Get Out Of My Head. Formerly, if not currently, a common utterance on the xkcd forums. Fans of XKCD often feel (jokingly) that Randall has been spying on their thoughts or conversations, because he frequently makes comics about things that they were just thinking about or talking about.<br /><br />GOOMH-bait, then, are comics which are designed to elicit this response. The emphasis is not on the humor, but on the fact that people will probably have had this experience and will sympathize. This is part of why XKCD is so deeply engrained in nerd culture: it often avoids making jokes and instead makes pandering references, hoping that people will like it because it seems to be made by someone who is Just Like You.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-33855970479150958952011-11-22T17:54:52.910-08:002011-11-22T17:54:52.910-08:00No he wasn't, you're a fucking idiot with ...No he wasn't, you're a fucking idiot with zero reading comprehension skills and quite possibly severely autistic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-50880899550285663792011-11-22T17:39:50.986-08:002011-11-22T17:39:50.986-08:00To go all the way back to 12:26, I agree with poin...To go all the way back to 12:26, I agree with point A, I am not sure about point B. I think point B is too narrow, the point should be "an adult having sex with a child is always wrong". And I think the questions that need to be answered to be sure about B are the following.<br /><br />What harms a child about molestation?<br />Is there any kind of sexual act performed with children that doesn't harm them? <br />Is it possible to know in the moment whether any sexual act will harm a children? <br />Is it merely the lack of interest in sex, and that for sex to take place it MUST be forced on them that is the harmful act? <br />Is the pain of a parent, knowing their child has engaged in sex with an adult, a cultural or biological phenomenon?<br /><br />There are probably more questions that should be answered. I read Lolita last week, good book, Humbert Humbert is a sympathetic character.Trance Trance Trancehttp://tranceoclock.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28365139766639214122011-11-22T17:30:02.304-08:002011-11-22T17:30:02.304-08:004:46, you say that it's harmful because it lea...4:46, you say that it's harmful because it leads to a harmful act. But it is far easier to simply categorise the act as harmful and the viewing of pornography as not harmful, because the former doesn't necessarily follow the latter.<br /><br />I don't know what the current procedure is when child pornography is discovered in someone's possession, but I would hope it would not be a criminal procedure (assuming no children have been harmed by this particular paedophile at this point). It seems an excellent opportunity for intervention and help to protect children and the paedophile.<br /><br />Because the justice system in the end should be about minimising harm. That means treatment for criminals, not revenge.Innocent Windowless Van Ownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-65065584877342040452011-11-22T16:46:42.548-08:002011-11-22T16:46:42.548-08:00Where did you learn to read, 4:40? Honestly. It...Where did you learn to read, 4:40? Honestly. It's harmful for pedophiles to view because evidence suggests that satisfying their urges on a small scale will lead to an escalation of behaviour ie. they will become more comfortable with the idea of finding real children to molest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84604290869857710492011-11-22T16:40:57.966-08:002011-11-22T16:40:57.966-08:00How is it harmful? The reason child porn is illeg...How is it harmful? The reason child porn is illegal is because it takes advantage of and harms a child.<br /><br />Cartoons don't have rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-37216632041008824002011-11-22T15:40:30.632-08:002011-11-22T15:40:30.632-08:00Well, if you're not getting off sexually on fi...Well, if you're not getting off sexually on fictional drawings of nudey children there really is no harm in viewing them. Their use for shock humour and what-have-you really doesn't hurt anyone at all. A drawing of Lisa Simpson sucking off Homer, for instance, is tasteless comedy but is only really harmful when viewed by a pedo.<br /><br />@2:11 it doesn't seem to work that way. The research I've seen tends to point towards a trend of escalated behaviour once you start engaging smaller avenues of release. Of course, simple repression doesn't work either. Can't say I know what the solution is, I'm afraid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89580669537020876262011-11-22T15:06:11.279-08:002011-11-22T15:06:11.279-08:00@Anon 2:07
So what you're saying is, it should...@Anon 2:07<br />So what you're saying is, it should be okay to watch child porn in cartoons as long as you have no pedophiliac urges? After all, non-violent people are allowed to play violent video games.<br /><br />[Troll post, not meant to be taken seriously]Jon Levihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02982566251460262711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89559368248541705372011-11-22T14:47:33.625-08:002011-11-22T14:47:33.625-08:00Anonymous I agree in the sense that it's error...Anonymous I agree in the sense that it's error-riddled. I've seen other errors noted above. I didn't want to dig into it, just making a birds-eye observation.<br /><br />What I meant about (it at least not being as bad as) the elaborate banana chart is, given the fact that taking in banana radioactive material pushes out an equivalent amount of bananana radioactive material, and the incoming banana stuff is no more likely to be more radioactive than what you already had than it is to be less radioactive, the usual banana dose is ZERO. And no matter how much you multiply that by, you don't get any equivalents to extra sources of radiation or radioactive material. If Randall's chart was right, taking iodine pills wouldn't shield you from any of the effects of radioactive iodine. It's the same principle. You saturate your thyroid and general system the way you're already saturated for the radioactive potassium in bananas. It makes you markedly safer if exposed to radioactive iodine. Well, your body's already set for banana radioactive potassium.<br /><br />That made the whole chart a condescending, pretentious, Big Lie. And one with tremendous backing, just as the Josef Oehmen nonsense about Fukushima had.<br /><br />On the other hand, the errors he made in his money chart are going to reflect badly on him immediately, and he doesn't seem to be trying to convince anyone of something.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-10494661499517025862011-11-22T14:11:51.598-08:002011-11-22T14:11:51.598-08:00"The equivalent position to legitimising pedo..."The equivalent position to legitimising pedophilic urges through cartoons is watching fictional violence when you're a person predisposed to sadism, or (in a more abstract sense) decorating your house with a bottle of gin when you're an alcoholic. You're basically putting yourself at risk of one day making your urges a reality."<br /><br />Alternatively, you could consider it a release. Sort of like robbing banks and shooting hookers in a video game to get over your temptation to do it for real.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-55730107852344033152011-11-22T14:07:26.814-08:002011-11-22T14:07:26.814-08:00The equivalent position to legitimising pedophilic...The equivalent position to legitimising pedophilic urges through cartoons is watching fictional violence when you're a person predisposed to sadism, or (in a more abstract sense) decorating your house with a bottle of gin when you're an alcoholic. You're basically putting yourself at risk of one day making your urges a reality.<br /><br />There's no harm in tactfully advising a person get help with something if you truly believe he or she needs it. I suggest you get help with your uncontrolled concern trolling, for instance. It's stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85509419171204668842011-11-22T12:26:22.148-08:002011-11-22T12:26:22.148-08:00I'm just really not sure where to stand RE: pe...I'm just really not sure where to stand RE: pedophilia (the sexuality, not the act). There are two relevant beliefs that I would have a hard time changing, and those are A: one does not choose one's sexuality, and it is difficult if not impossible to change one's sexuality, so therefore having a particular sexuality cannot be in and of itself immoral, B: an adult having sex with a child is wrong, because children are not capable of giving consent. The thing is, I've yet to meet someone who believes both of these things consistently. Most people seem to instantly assume that if someone is attracted to children then they're evil and will have no qualms about committing child molestation. They may be OK using the "sexuality is not a choice" argument w/r/t LGBT people but those are sexualities they don't see anything wrong with anyway. With pedophilia they start acting like it's not a choice at all. Most people I've encountered arguing position A seem to not want to acknowledge position B, and really just seem to be child molestation apologists. Now it may seem like the obvious choice is to just stick to my position even if no one else agrees with me, but it's kind of hard to know what's "reasonable" when neither side is being reasonable to me. Like, is it rude to tell someone to get psychological help if they say they're attracted to children? Having never encountered someone with this attraction who seems honestly committed to not harming children, I have no idea how effective it is, or how rude this would be. Also, with regards to drawn/animated child porn, it seem based on my beliefs above that it's not in and of itself a bad thing, but people seem to either argue that it somehow legitimizes actual childporn or that it's perfectly OK and so is porn involving actual children. Now I know the latter is wrong but I have no perspective on the former, there's really no equivalent position. The argument doesn't apply to regular porn because that doesn't appeal to a harmful sexuality. BDSM falls into this weird scenario where people either assume they're evil or act like they're only attracted to this weird ritualized roleplay and that implying that they'd actually be turned on by real rape/torture/slavery is horrible of me (even the people who think it's evil seem to take if for granted that the people who are into it wouldn't be turned on by the real thing). There just doesn't seem to be anyone who genuinely believes that someone can be turned on by something wrong and at the same time be a good person. I guess the easy thing to do would just be to agree with them, but ignoring position A up there just isn't something I'm entirely comfortable with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-20869191281070516522011-11-22T11:55:33.106-08:002011-11-22T11:55:33.106-08:00Randall must be the worst budgeter. I imagine his ...Randall must be the worst budgeter. I imagine his home life as an episode of I Love Lucy with the roles reversed. The episode where he goes out to buy some rice and beans and gets stuck in the supermarket for two hours is a classic.Sir Gentlemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45976219657583207652011-11-22T11:46:44.731-08:002011-11-22T11:46:44.731-08:00@8:46 it's not like he's has made a comic ...@8:46 it's not like he's has made a comic about the unreliability of certain sources or anything<br /><br />(money causes cancer by the way)R.noreply@blogger.com