SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paypal has stopped processing payments for Voat, a donation-supported open-source clone of Reddit. A moderator of Reddit's SRS community has taken credit for convincing Paypal to take action against Voat.
Additionally: This is what happens when you create an online community without any rules, part 2
PayPal Cuts Off Reddit Clone Voat Over 'Obscenity'
Previously: HostEurope.De Cuts Service to Reddit Alternative Voat
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Paypal Cuts Service to Reddit Clone Voat
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 60 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Logicians have but ill defined
As rational the human kind.
Logic, they say, belongs to man,
But let them prove it if they can.
-- Oliver Goldsmith
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:11PM
One thing common amoungst pedophiles and libertarians is this fear of "government".
What I fear is the government violating fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech. Censorship is completely intolerable. Or would you disagree that the government punishing people for speech is censorship? Government censorship is always intolerable.
Since the government is using mass surveillance which can undermine democracy [gnu.org], and there has never been a single government in history that has not abused its powers in egregious ways, why aren't you more cautious of the government? Are you one of those ignorant fools that blindly believes the people in the government are magically perfect beings who can make no mistakes and do no wrong?
I'm sorry, but pedophilia is not wrong only because of the arbitrary will of some rogue beaurocracy
Whether it is wrong or not is subjective.
it is wrong because the overwhelming majority of people believe it is wrong for very good reasons.
Bandwagon fallacy. What the overwhelming majority believe is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the "very good reasons" you mention are actually very good reasons, but for that, you'd have to prove that objective morality even exists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:52PM
Whether it is wrong or not is subjective.
Finally, at long last, I comprehend your username. But you are still wrong.
Oh, and not all silencing of speech is censorship. Sometimes it is charity.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:50PM
But you are still wrong.
If you're saying absolute morality exists, I take it you believe in a magical sky daddy? If not, how do you explain that?
By "pedophilia", I take it the person above meant "child porn" (the possession of images or videos of such things), since that is what people are mentioning. And people get "pedophile" and "child molester" mixed up too often; they're different things. If pedophiles are indeed scared of the government, the hysteria over the entire subject and the presumption of guilt may be one reason why.
Oh, and not all silencing of speech is censorship. Sometimes it is charity.
Redefining "censorship" will not help you. Do you find North Korea's government to be charitable?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @08:19PM
I take it you believe in a magical sky daddy?
Leave my sky daddy out of this, you pervert! You're just jealous!
But seriously, why do you assume that there must be a fiat behind objective morality? If there is no god, then no one can say something is right or wrong? This sounds curiously like the fundie Christian argument that atheists cannot be moral, since they do not believe in a lawgiver, and thus there can be no law. But that is a parallel to the idea that laws against things like kiddy porn are just a matter of government fiat. Some things are wrong even if no one tells you not to do them.
Let's try a libertarian-anarchist example. The Golden Rule, don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself. So morality implies reciprocal consent. Example, cannibalism: if you say it is alright to eat other people against their will, you have no right to complain if some eats you. I know what you're thinking: what if some one consents to be eaten by you? Here it gets tricky, because if I were crazy and thought that you should eat me, I would probably appreciate it if you did not, when (and if) I regained my sanity. So consent is based on competency to consent. Do you see where this is going? Yes, you have a right to speak. But if you are saying things that make you look stupid, things that will embarrass you or harm you later on, is it not an act of charity to try and get you to shut up, for your own good? Don't be a jmorris. I would hope you would do the same for me.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @08:28PM
If there is no god, then no one can say something is right or wrong?
They can, but it is their opinion. And people do share opinions. Sometimes they feel so strongly that they force their opinions on others, and sometimes, I think, that is justified. But that's just my opinion.
This sounds curiously like the fundie Christian argument that atheists cannot be moral
Morality is subjective, so of course atheists can be moral. But they're using their own definition of "moral". And likely, many of their values are shared by many people.
Some things are wrong even if no one tells you not to do them.
Wrong in some people's opinion, yes.
Example, cannibalism: if you say it is alright to eat other people against their will, you have no right to complain if some eats you.
Not if your values are such that eating others is okay, but others eating you is not; in other words, a double standard. But no one is obliged to care about your values, and probably wouldn't. Regardless, of course someone always has a right to complain.
But if you are saying things that make you look stupid, things that will embarrass you or harm you later on, is it not an act of charity to try and get you to shut up, for your own good?
It's not an act of charity to silence others using the government, no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @12:17AM
It's not an act of charity to silence others using the government, no.
What to do when polite hints totally fail? Intervention! Paypal will get their attention. If that doesn't work, there is always Interpol. And if all else fails, Anonymous. Expect them.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 26 2015, @01:17AM
Violating a fundamental right like freedom of speech isn't really a solution to dealing with speech you don't like. For one thing, you'll fail. For another, you're probably violating your own values in the process if you claim to care about freedom of speech, and if you don't, you probably should consider moving to somewhere like North Korea. Sicking monopolistic corporate thugs on people is only a slight step above government intervention. Same for vandalizing other people's property, if that's what you were implying.
As for Anonymous, most are just script kiddies and can't really do much. Still, I wasn't aware that many of them joined the SJW, Save The Children, or Politically Correct crowds. You'd think they'd be in favor of a site that respects free speech...