Alabama Supreme Court has joined the debate over morality being the sole basis for legislative restrictions on citizens. The court upheld the state ban on the sale of sex toys purely on the basis that such toys are viewed as immoral. Since Lawrence v. Texas, such morality based laws have been questioned on constitutional grounds. For a prior column, click here.
At issue is Section 13A-12-200.5(4) which prohibits such sales “within 1,000 feet of a church, place of worship, church bookstore, public park, public housing project, daycare center, public or private school, college, recreation center, skating rink, video arcade, public swimming pool, private residence, or any other place frequented by minors.” It would be simpler to just ban it outright rather than pretend a tailored zone restriction when the law includes any residence, church bookstore or place with kids.
The case of 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover involves a business called Love Stuff in Hoover, Alabama where sex toys are sold to adults.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the majority can ban such sales as offensive to the majority of the citizenry. Associate Justice Michael F. Bolin wrote “[p]ublic morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity”. It relied on the earlier decisions of the Eleventh Circuit and Fifth Circuit that such laws can be defended as rationally based on morality grounds. The court distinguished the Lawrence case.
The court ruled:
in rejecting Love Stuff’s federal constitutional challenge to [the law], we agree with the interpretation given Lawrence v. Texas by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Post-Lawrence public morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity. As the 11th Circuit pithily and somewhat coarsely stated: `There is nothing `private’ or `consensual’ about the advertising and sale of a dildo’.
The case could make for a fascinating appeal and finally put the question of morality legislation squarely before the Supreme Court. However, Justice Sotomayor would be an uncertainty on the question (as opposed to David Souter who would likely have voted to strike down the law).
Here is the opinion: Alabama decision
Alabama Supreme Court’s interpretation of Islamic Sharia law.
Assuming for a moment that indeed these kinds of morality-based bans are Constitutional (and that’s a big assumption), how exactly would the public majority’s opinion be established on such matters as sex toys? I assume through those elected in our “representative” government to the state legislature in Alabama. What of voter apathy? Should not the non-voting, dildo-loving be heard? What about a random digit dial public opinion poll of 1,000 Alabama residents?
And what *is* a majority opinion in a country with such staggering voter apathy? I know, I know — and I agree — if you want your voice heard, vote! That’s nice in principal and on paper, but is it realistic in a country where the poor, those who barely subsist in our society, who are often in personal crisis, frequently homeless, simply AREN’T voting? Those who are, are often older, whiter, and more middle-class (even this is arguable at this point) or well-to-do. At this point, who exactly do our Representatives represent?
I guess love me tender love me true means I can’t still can’r screw you. The Legislature in action. Remember the words of the long lost words of Old Ben:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
* Benjamin Franklin
“At issue is Section 13A-12-200.5(4) which prohibits such sales “within 1,000 feet of a church, place of worship, church bookstore, public park, public housing project, daycare center, public or private school, college, recreation center, skating rink, video arcade, public swimming pool, private residence, or any other place frequented by minors.
What about the grocery store ?
a cucumber can get one in a pickle?
Next up, after a total ban on phallic produce, no more horse rides (both real and mechanical), fingers and banisters.
Alabama.
If Louisiana considers you morons, you know that the state has . . . something . . . going on.
Good one, pardon me.
I would say that “a cumcumber can get one in a pickle” with the gubbmit’ only if you ‘relish’ it…
Too me the great irony in this type of legislative/judicial attempt to regulate sexuality, is that usually the very proponents of sexual prudishness, are those who in their private lives are the most sexually dysfunctional. It’s almost like they’re thinking “stop me before I pleasure myself again.
It always seems the people who scream the loudest about morality are the ones who’s skeletons tumble out of the closet if one just umlatches the door. Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich all were “crusaders of orality” and all turned out to be immoral hypocites. I wouldn’t trust Justice Bolin to be alone with any of the Boyscouts at the next Jamboree. Something sticks about people like him.
Please excuse my typing/spelling should read “unlatches” the door; and crusaders of “morality” sry
Just curious… does anyone know the law regarding the possession of sex toys in Alabama?
Prior to the ban in Texas being lifted, anyone possessing more than 6 dildos could be prosecuted for promoting obscenity. I don’t know if anyone was ever prosecuted under that law, but it was on the books.
btw, Roland: in the case of Larry Craig and Mark Foley, I think “crusaders of orality” works rather well.
The following quoted excerpts are from an article by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago
_________________________________
Sex and Sin
“So, what is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the “public morality”? Why is a person who uses such a device “immoral”? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful.
Of course, people have a right to believe whatever their religion commands. If they wish not to use a sex aid, or to be celibate, that’s their own business. But can this set of beliefs serve as a constitutionally permissible definition of the “public morality” in a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state?”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/sex-and-sin_b_308732.html
_________________________________
Christianity and the Church never said “sexual pleasure” is sinful. Outside of the sacrament of marriage, having a sexual relationship is a sin. The fact that “pleasure is derived” from the act, has nothing to do with it being sinful or not. You continue to underwhelm me FFLEO..
“Like the other medieval theologians, Aquinas affirmed the common teaching of the Church that sexual intercourse solely for the sake of pleasure was sinful.
–Catholic sexual ethics: a summary, explanation & defense
By Ronald David Lawler, Joseph M. Boyle, William E. May at page 63.
Later theologians interpreting Aquinas have loosened the foolish stance of the medieval Church, but it is sheer historical ignorance to say that “… the Church never said “sexual pleasure” is sinful.”
” … “[p]ublic morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity”. It relied on the earlier decisions of the Eleventh Circuit and Fifth Circuit that such laws can be defended as rationally based on morality grounds.”
***************
Were I a member of the prurient Republican crowd, I would shudder at the thought of legislating morality. What would happen to Craig, Vitter, Ensign, Mike Duvall, Sanford, Mark Foley, Jim Gibbons, John Gosek, Jeff Miller, etc. (and the list exceeds my typing perseverance)?
Sex toys are immoral in the eyes of this retarded court…
Sometimes it’s time to just face the fact that the situation is without hope.
“I wish that all were (celebates) as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better (i.e. a lesser evil) to marry than to be aflame with passion.”
I Corinthians: 7:7-9 – Paul of Tarsus
This was the beginning of the antisexual attitude of the RCC and was later bolstered via the Council of Nicea and various Bishops who adopted the Gnostic world view that “flesh was evil” and superimposed these beliefs on Jesus teachings in the Gospels. The Catholic teachings for Century’s was that sex in marriage was strictly for procreation and not pleasure. This incidentally was the antithesis of the teaching in the Torah that deemed sexual fulfillment in marriage a blessing. Jesus probably believed that too. The Gnostic influences, though at times denounced as heretical, held great sway in the early Church after Constantine’s interference and injection of paganism. That’s the history of it and the attitude of anti-sexuality that followed. The only chance for change occurred when John XXIII
became Pope. A truly saintly man, whose ideas if followed after his death would have created a Church more true to Jesus’ teachings.
Mike S., can you cite a a particular article of “faith or dogama” taught by the Catholic Church that articulates that “sex was never supposed to be pleasurable within the sacrament of marriage, but merely to be used as an “adjunct for procreation”?
You bring up a good point Mespo about St. Thomas Aquinas. He was teaching, through the Summa, that if a servant of the Lord were to view the beautiful outlet of human sexuality as a means for “only” pleasure, its’ beauty and gift could become perverted and abused. Within the confines of the sacrament of marriage it is a pleasurable act as instituted by the Creator. The most important element that sexuality offers is that it allows the possibility for further procreation, thereby creating more souls that can be led to the “Kingdom of Christ”.
I will check back periodically, for Mike S. response. Go Bruins!
“I wish that all were (celebates) as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better (i.e. a lesser evil) to marry than to be aflame with passion.”
I Corinthians: 7:7-9 – Paul of Tarsus
—
Indeed, Mike. I think if one were to study Paul long enough, had an open mind about it, and was able to set aside their blind belief in the Bible, they would see that Paul was likely homosexual himself, perhaps bi-polar, and held a deep-seeded self hatred. His teachings were *frequently* inconsistent with those of Jesus, his very emotional and appeared imbalanced at times, and he had no problem dispensing moral advice like he was God Himself. Sounds like many who blindly follow his teachings today. Anyway, thanks for a good Biblical quote that highlights the fundamental problem with Christianity today: denial, self hatred, and projection. A nice psychosis cocktail, if you ask me.
George, I can only hope that your “outer Limits”, insights are not reflective of the entire left -wing bloggers who post here regularly. To respond to your statement would be to give some creedence to this absurdity…
FederalFFLEO, you mentioned my prior “vulgar” postings. I suggest you police your own behavior. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing aspects of human sexuality that are inappropriate and rather immature. I have read your past posts. You seem to delight in steering “any” post that deals with some element of human sexuality into the “gutter” further. For a “wordsmith” and very “bright” man you don’t have to wallow in the “muck”..
For any of my past postings that were offensive and had profane language in them I also apologize to all I may have offended and to Mr. Turley as well..
, thankyou for allowing me to express my feelings and opinions on your thoughtful blog. Though my value sysytem and outlook is different than most here.
What is the sound of one lip sucking up?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/02/the-vatican-official-claims-that-no-more-than-five-percent-of-priests-rape-children-and-jews-and-protestants-may-be-worse/#comment-83521
You wouldn’t understand it buddha, its’ beyond you at this stage of your development. Authentic contrition and striving to be humble are attempts at doing “the right thing”. My conscience is my barometer,not my ego..
You’re a sociopath, billy. You have no conscience. If you did, you wouldn’t be trying to ingratiate yourself to FFLEO with your passive aggression – “police yourself” followed by “I’m sorry”.
Hollywood’s dialog equivalent would be, “You’re such a bitch you made me hit you. I’m sorry.” Yeah. Right.
All you care about is manipulation toward self-aggrandizement and attempting to suck up again was a predicted strategy. Too bad it won’t work.
Buddha, you need to get enrolled in Psych 101 at your local community college. The gross misinformation you spread like fertilizer is only eclipsed by your narcissism and haughtiness.
George, I can only hope that your “outer Limits”, insights are not reflective of the entire left -wing bloggers who post here regularly. To respond to your statement would be to give some creedence to this absurdity…
—
Frankly, billy, or Wayne, or whoever, I think the KINDEST thing for everyone involved would be for Professor Turley to give you a 30 day probation from posting here. You clog up threads with your compulsory posts that attack and call names, and rarely refute anything you are called on. And when you do, it is ALWAYS personal and never based on fact or even intelligent speculation. Everything is name calling and personal tear downs. If you are a therapist or even a social worker, can you not see what you are doing and how you behave?
Perhaps a 30 day probation would give you a chance to gain some perspective and the ability to return here with some maturity and respect for other people that post their views and discuss issues here.
In the mean time, I choose to ignore your posts as you continually lie about your identity, and claim an advanced degree and important work in the field psychology with absolutely nothing to back it up.
You have little to no integrity in my opinion, billy. I’m open, though. If you’d like to show some humility and humbleness, and offer an apology to all of us for being such a jerk, write away… Oh, and don’t come back posting the same way 15 minutes later — there is absolutely NO integrity in that either.
I suspect, though, we won’t see an apology for the attacks on every here. You are always RIGHT. And no matter the scenario, the other person is always WRONG and likely an idiot to boot. Maybe you should brush up on narcissistic personality disorder.
The truth is a bit painful George, maybe its’ for your own growth..
Thats’ right George, any rational, thinking person would invariably come to the conclusion that St. Paul was bipolar and homosexual, based upon the overwhelming, thought provoking evidence you have so passionatley shared. Thanks George..
Dear Professor Turley,
You’ve asked in other posts for us to e-mail you when we feel there are troll abuses on the site that need dealt with. I believe this is one such case. I do not have your e-mail, however, and can’t seem to find it if it is posted here. Anyway, please consider this a formal request to give a “billy” some sort of probation or suspension for the persistent personal attacks.
Thank you.
I guess anyone who professes to be celibate “must” in fact be a closet homosexual, according to your logic George..
Then of course you would all have to agree with my “logical” posts regarding homosexuality and pedophilia in the Church. Naw, makes to much sense..
Because a person is celibate in no way implies he is homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, but to follow Georges’ logic, the “two” would be intertwined, based upon St. Pauls’ statement. Am I correct in my assumption George?
This was the beginning of the antisexual attitude of the RCC….
– Mike Spindell
Ahh the smell of fresh chum in the blogosphere, Mike is it really sporting to attract individuals who only impersonate sanity?
FISH ON! Yells the guide.
BTW I do adore the FL regulars on JT’s crew. (NO LISTS)
Thanks, I thought I might share as well.
Not to change the topic, but I figure this topics a wash for intelligent discussion.
The headline got me wanting to hear this song.
Beautiful piece of jazz, nice touch….
Always loved Dave Broubek, especially “take-five”..
“Church bookstores”? Really? Also, does one who claims that “morality” would prohibit a certain product being sold have to make any sort of specific argument as to why that product is “immoral”? Somehow, I’m guessing that the “immorality” is “obvious” and is never actually spelled out.
On these “distance based” restrictions: they really need to scale with density. I’m thinking here of the “sex offenders” living under a bridge in Miami. Many of these restrictions seem to be a bit problematic, but if you’re going to implement such a restriction, then it would seem to make more sense that in a rural area, a half mile might be reasonable, in a suburb 1000′ might be good, but in a dense city, these sorts of buffer zones need to be much, much smaller.
Also, if a community finds firearms to be “immoral”, could such a law be used to shut down a gun shop?
(Finally: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! Simply do not engage or respond to them. They will go away. It’s just like dog training – don’t reward the bad behavior with attention and the behavior will stop.)
Tom,
Guns are essential to personal freedom. The ability to engage in actions that effect only yourself and others who are willingly involved, but that the majority of people disapprove of based on religious beliefs isn’t.
Good sex isn’t a victimless crime, think of all those Good Christians forced to think about all the stuff their neighbor might be doing.
“Mike is it really sporting to attract individuals who only impersonate sanity?”
CCD,
It isn’t and he is. You are correct and my behavior in this does not meet the standards I set for myself. What set me off is the insolence of his trying to hijack yet another article and thread, but I really should have taken FFLEO’s original advice on the matter, with due respect to him, I will now follow yours. Kudos also to TomD.Arch for his reminder.
Mike,
No praise for the music? It’s well known among certain circles that the quickest way to redirect a conversation is to play a recording of “A Love Supreme” as performed by what appear to be graduate students.
Good answer Mike. I didn’t think you had one…
What fun is a blog if everyone thinks alike? What you call “insolence”, I call ” sharing different spiritual and philosophical values”..
CCD, Mike, Tom and any other regulars (mespo, et al.),
This is a legitimate question and I’ll only respond to legitimate answers from those addressed above.
Where is the line between “wrangling” and “feeding”?
Debunking and discrediting, to me, fall under the category of wrangling. It’s stopping their memes.
Arguing within the trolls parameters, i.e. letting them direct the conversation, is feeding. It’s fostering their memes unless it’s merely a step toward debunking and/or discrediting.
I agree that feeding is bad, but I also think wrangling is necessary. I don’t think what Mike was doing fits under “feeding” though. Keeping propagandists from high jacking multiple threads is a valid concern. So where do you think the line is drawn? Is it a fine line distinction or a fuzzy logic? I think it’s pretty straight forward as delineated above, but I’d like to hear what the qualified regulars think.
Buddha,
If I may, and I will offer my unsolicited advice. It becomes troll feeding when the answers get more distorted that the original question or response than what was asked initially.
I too have been guilty of baiting and being baited by lil ole billy the troll. As you can see, I have had nothing really to say since Friday as his stupidity or vapidness exceeds normalcy and hedges on indecency. Whatever normal is, I am not sure.
Feed the trolls I enjoy reading your responses to them. The one that gets to me is when someone tries and reasons with them. Sometimes stupidity cannot be reasoned with. We are all aware that they have an agenda that does not comport with the request of the Blawg owner.
I will state again, when I have time, I like to feed them as well. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. No skill, not a sport but sometimes it is just fun to get rid of frustrations on idiots without any personal ties to them. I can shut off the computer and know that that is the best I did for the day.
Buddha,
My statement was regarding my feelings only and not a general caution, or chastisement for anyone else. I always enjoy your stuff, trust your judgment (mostly) and believe that you have made some of the most prescient comments on the psyche we’re dealing with.
“What fun is a blog if everyone thinks alike? What you call “insolence”, I call ” sharing different spiritual and philosophical values”..”
Or sociopathy Wayne?
Gyges,
You being musically inclined are far above me in choosing apt
expressions of musical comment. To my mind all I’ve got is:
The truth will be known at Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Vince Treacy wrote that here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/02/amazing-video-of-anne-frank/#more-15614
The truth is also multi faceted and demands to be examined from multiple perspectives. Over time an individual’s intent becomes clear from their words. We’ve heard a number of “brass bands” come thru practicing over their “loud speakers,” to paraphrase Mespo.
Those who project rigidity and fear, with a sort of my way or the highway perspective don’t connect head with heart, not to say they can’t. They’re closed to examining truth from multiple angles. The dynamics of life require us to be resilient, raising our awareness. The ultra anybody’s continue to defend policy whose time has expired.
Where is the line between “wrangling” and “feeding”?
Jeeze thanks for asking BIL, I honestly don’t know. Who can say when an individual will drop their defenses of fear and respond to the stimulation of the pearls rolling around here?
The above is an example of the squishy logic Bob, Esq. finds contemptible. (Is that Baez I feel breathing down my neck?)
D’OUH Mike has Baez going already!
Mike,
Actually, yours is much more relevant and on topic. Mine was picked to be a distraction.
I considered some Ives, but I just couldn’t work out that clever joke about “The Things our Fathers Loved” that I’m sure is in there. So we all had to settle for that ham fisted segue.
Buddha,
Just a thought: My dog gets food from me leaving a roast on the counter, regardless of if I was letting it rest or leaving it up there for him to get.
When they put up “don’t feed the bear” signs out here, the signs generally talk about the unintended feeding as well as the intended.
Clever response Mike. When you are asked a question, or feel challenged, assign the fellow-blogger to the ranks of “sociopathy”. Where did you say you got your MSW degree from? Do you even know what the definition and features of this personlaty disorder are? I think in your case, just having the last word, is ultimately what allows you to feel vindicated. Read my posts today, I have not attacked anyone with any name-calling. I esteemed you a little to much maybe Mike..
Billy,
My last post was addressed to Wayne, how come you answered?
The paranoid features you are beginning to display are as interminable as buddhas’. Do you actually believe half of what you post?
Gyges,
But on the other hand, isn’t discrediting bad ideas part of what we are supposed to be doing? I see this as a case of you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. I do see what you are saying and I agree to an extent, but do not hunters bait traps? Do they no use the animal’s instincts against them?
The answer is of course yes, but within the confines of troll management? It’s a bit of a conundrum with the One Rule, hence posing the question.
Let’s examine three cases. Byron, bdaman and Wayne.
I think they make good case studies in troll combat.
1) Byron: We have an example of an admitted troll who later came around to a more open minded stance through his sparing with the regulars. Although a self-identifying Republican and classical conservative with an Ayn Rand fetish which in itself is a disability (I kid! I kid! – except for the Rand bit), he went on to become a valuable contributor. A net add despite the costs incurred in showing him the Red Pills.
2) bdaman: Classic troll. Paid to do it and admitted as much. There was no educating him. He had a set agenda and when every attempt to assert that agenda failed, he fled. Feeding him had no net negative effect because his arguments were not based in logic and fact. This is 95% of all trolls.
3) Wayne: We have an example of troll that shows no sign that he’s capable of logic like a sane person. I agree that feeding him and his delusions are not just bad for conversation, but bad for him. Any mental health professional will tell you not to feed delusional behavior. Once marginalized, he should not be encouraged. This is the smallest percentage of the trolls we see here – the actually mentally defective.
But how can we tell which result we will get without “spilling a little blood”? I don’t think we can. I think the best we can do is be vigilant and know when to literally cut bait.
When the non-logic resistant show up trolling, like our own beloved Byron did those many moons ago do we not do them a disservice by not showing them a new way to think of things? Do we not create a disservice by not challenging their world view? Sometimes the path to enlightenment requires strategies that invite the unenlightened to examine the nature and errors of their thinking by seeming to agree with them. I know I’ve used this tactic before and I’ve seen the Mike’s, mespo and Bob use it too. If we don’t “feed” them to a certain (and I agree, it needs to be minimal) degree this becomes a more difficult and in some cases impossible task. How can one determine if logic or troll bashing techniques are required without first getting as much information on the declarators mindset as possible? I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but I do not think Byron would be where he is today if we hadn’t used similar “feed to disarm” tactics against him. He might be, he’s a pretty sharp guy, but I’m thinking it could have and would have been a longer process for him to reach his “Eureka!” moment without it. (B, please feel free to chime in on this.)
Like I’ve said before, I’m not into drawing blood just to do it. No one here knows how much I hated to do that when I was recently forced to be as vicious as I can be. I really, really didn’t like to have to exercise those skills. But I don’t see how we can 1) wrangle trolls like bdaman and Wayne into a position of being discredited (a necessary function) and 2) simultaneously reach out to the non-logic proof like Byron without some, I won’t say accidental, but unintentional feeding happening. Opening minds is always a win.
While I think the triage tool of above is a clear delineation (wrangle v. feed) in describing the options, I think it’s a clear sharp tool being applied to a fuzzy subject. These two polar examples though combined with bdaman’s “pure troll” example, I think illustrate both the challenge and the benefits to troll wrangling. I just don’t see a way to totally avoid the risk of feeding trolls and reach either outcome. I suggest that the best we can do is a minimizing strategy with regards to feeding: do it no more than is required to discredit their arguments and if they are logic proof, then to discredit the speaker. To that end, yes, wayne is largely set to be ignored. But I think to let him run amok without referencing his being discredited has risks too.
Speaking of running amok, my posts I type over a few seconds worth of reflection. For the most part they are brief and to the point. Buddhatrolls’ are laced with malice, verbose, and spin off into irrelevancies. Buddhatroll, your posts display the ideation of a paranoid, narcissist who is sounding more and more desperate.
“Speaking of running amok, my posts I type over a few seconds worth of reflection.”
And it shows.
Buddhapest,
You are responsible for my trouble too. You must take the blame. You probably do not understand that you were in Dallas that fateful day in Nov for JFK.
Just accept responsibility for that delusion as well. I bet you profited off of Oliver Norths gun dealing and should have been convicted along with him as well.
So were you near Michael Jackson when he died? You can answer this can’t you. Time for accountability buddhapest troll.
You and Mike S appear to be lil ole billy’s issue. Take stock see where you have erred and lip smack billy, wayne. They need love too. Just remember kiss, kiss, smack. You like it like that
lol
AY,
Yes, I am indeed the monster under your bed.
Buddhapest,
Ah ha, that is you. I knew it, I knew it all along. It was not that Welsh Rabbit and Mushrooms after all. Thank God.
BIL:
The criteria could be individuals who are logic proof and
display Ctrl- C and Ctrl-V issues.
CCD,
Yes, good point. Lack of original content and sticking to published special interest talking points over logic is a good indicator as to the nature of a troll as well.
Buddha,
I love it when you talk logic.
Mike,
One lives to be of service.
Especially today. Extra time on my hands as I am home with a sinus infection. The powers that be may have given me a fairly good brain, but I got hosed in the sinus department. I’ll live if the daytime TV doesn’t do me in first. The cats and dogs are really enjoying it though. Out sick in my house is the equivalent of “Designated Petter” unless I’m asleep.
Buddha:
“Is it a fine line distinction or a fuzzy logic? I think it’s pretty straight forward as delineated above, but I’d like to hear what the qualified regulars think.”
*************
Personally my rule is that when the thread reaches 100 posts and a third are in response to mindless trollisms, I think we have left the shores of “wrangling,” and are headed full bore to the maelstrom of “troll feeding” across some very choppy waters. Multiple troll postings is a corollary to my rule. I like to call my rule “Troll Defenestration For Dummies.”
Buddha,
We all draw the line in different places here. I’ve got my own code that I try and follow, and I don’t expect anyone else to follow it.
Personally, I’m much less interested in convincing others and correcting errors than I am in having interesting conversations. So my policy generally revolves around engaging people who I have interesting conversations with. That’s highly subjective, my interesting conversation is my wife’s “are you still going on about that?” I engaged IS several times when I knew he was trolling, because I found conversations with him interesting. There have been a few “regulars” that I just skimmed over most of their posts because I didn’t really find them all that engaging.
I just wanted to point out that one has to consider that our motivation shouldn’t be the sole determining factor in determining if we’re feeding the trolls.
mespo & gyges,
Good points. Volume ratios and sport trolling are indeed considerations. I will stipulate motive should not be a sole factor, but one of many.
And not all threads are equal troll attractors either. There are some subjects that bring them out of the woodwork (torture, war crimes, RCC, etc.).
That adds yet another layer.
I agree with Gyges on this point.
My goal is interesting and thought provoking conversation.
Designating dispositively trollhood to someone on the basis of a few posts *where the content of those posts* one disagress with, is abusing the designation.
On the basis of what I saw Billy posting here alone, I would not assert he is a troll, but then I am A LOT more tolerant of others’ perspectives who regularly post here.
Billy seemed to be asserting his perspective, w/o ctl-c ctl-v, it seemed to be based upon thinking and rationale, and his reasoned opinion. I didn’t agree with most of it, but that has no bearing on trolldom.
If a poster is acting mechanically, not responding on-point to the topic or posts directed at them, if they are posting third party content willy-nilly, has mostly ad hominems to say about others, well then I would say those red flags put them into the troll category.
Short of that, to accuse them of being a troll because you just don’t like what they are saying, relevant content-wise, well then you are letting your own bias and illiberalism show through.
How does the famous quote go “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it”.
It is only when speech is affirmatively abusive should it be pilloried.
Gary,
You bring up yet a finer distinction. In the technical sense, people like Billy aren’t really trolls in the propaganda troll sense like paid trolls bdaman and Byrne or those who simply had a little too much kool-aid before showing up like Byron. They’re not really trolls so much as unbalanced. They just engage in trolling behavior but it probably has less to do with political beliefs than . . . other issues. However, this does not negate their behavior. That their driver is non-rational should factor in, but I don’t see how except in a posterior manner: one cannot fathom the motives or thoughts of an individual without exposure and evidence.
To that end, and this is a more open ended philosophical question, what does it matter the source of a bad idea as long as it is challenged and/or refuted?
“Personally my rule is that when the thread reaches 100 posts and a third are in response to mindless trollisms, I think we have left the shores of “wrangling,” and are headed full bore to the maelstrom of “troll feeding” across some very choppy waters. Multiple troll postings is a corollary to my rule. I like to call my rule “Troll Defenestration For Dummies.”
Mespo,
A simple rule perhaps, but I think it captures the essence of my thinking on this, in that it gives voice to what I think gets me so annoyed with trolls. When I see a potentially interesting discussion hijacked by one person, leading it away from the pertinent points of interest it annoys me. This post by you and Buddha’s really helped me to clarify my own thinking as to why I sometimes react as I do.
To me the Alabama story that started this thread had two very interesting aspects:
1. Then tendency of the US to respond with hypocrital overreaction to the idea of people enjoying their own private sexuality.
2. The use of the law to try to suppress sexuality based on the false premises of religious zealots.
The comments were initially not anti-RCC, in fact it being Alabama we know that the RCC wasn’t a factor and yet it became so because of Wayne’s actions. We’ve seen this same personnal do the exact same thing in the past and it is anooying to the extent that dealing with this person cuts short discussions and topics that are not only interesting, but relate to JT’s overall intention in maintaining this site.
Buddha, Mike, I am not a troll. Correct I stay on the topics that interest me, usually religion and some element of science. I challenged you and gave my learned and logical and well thought out opinions. Because we come to different conclusions is fine. What is somewhat amusing is how many of you spend an inordinate amount of time bashing me and referring to me as a “troll”. I like to contribute as well. In the future, lets’ try to be a little more civil to one another. The beauty of this world and this blog is that people can come together and share different ideas about a variety of subjects. JT I think wants everyone to share and kinda have a laugh at the irony and outrageousness of “life”. Many of these topics are pretty funny, lets’ try to keep that in mind shall we.
My positions are always rationl buddha and logical. I try to bring “EVERYTHING” to its’ logical conclusion…
“I challenged you and gave my learned and logical and well thought out opinions.”
Where you go off the tracks is in thinking that other than claiming erudition, Googling the DSM and throwing around immature insults, while at the same time doing obnoxious bragging, you have contributed anything to the discussions that represents either learned or logical. Most of your many posts are one or two liners, empty of content. Initially, you began having a contribution to make, albeit imbued with the above mentioned personality quirks, but you then quickly descended into your RCC cheer-leading, that was anything but learned or erudite. I’m not referring to your beliefs, but to your injection of them, without the ability to defend them and to your inability to comprehend what was being replied to you.
In my case you called me an anti-Catholic bigot and then when I shared some of my childhood memories, you expressed total disbelief that I could have Catholic friends or even have attended masses. It was in your expression that the truth of you was revealed, which is that your agenda has always been to put forth your beliefs in the RCC and that is where Wayne left off lo these many months ago.
“not contributed anything”
If you “despise” the church because of having religious teachings that do not coincide with yours, you would be a bigot. Also Mike, I don’t have to google DSM. I studied it and use it regularly to better assist my clients’.. I defended my belief cogently and with facts regarding the problems within the Catholic Church. I believe(and rightly so), that the continued ordination of actively homosexual men, who have displayed a proclivity toward underage males is the problem. Screening out these applicants prior to admission into the seminary and laicizing them immediately after they go “wrong” are deterrents that need to be used without surcease.
A bigot is an individual who holds a prejudice against a racial or religious group based on some illogical fear or bias. If you despise the Catholic Church for this reason, you would be a bigot. John Kennedy faced the spectre of Bigotry when he ran for the Presidency due to many ignorant people feeling that he would have to confer with the Pope or the Holy Office in Rome, prior to making critical decisions that shaped domestic and foreign policy. Of course this was “illogical” and he was elected to the white house. Those people who shared these beliefs were bigots…
Billy:
I think your emphasis should be on pedophiles, not homosexuals, as the two are not mutually inclusive.
The problem is not that gay priests are having sex with other gay priests, but rather that they are having it with their underage charges and congregants.
So the operative attribute is pedophile, not homosexual; the unacceptable target of their affections are children, not consenting adults of the same gender.
Even if as you say, a majority of the those who they molest are male, it is not the child’s maleness that matters, it is their age and incognizence to intelligently (or legally) consent.
Gary, read “all” my prior postings. You wll see that these “male priests” are molesting boys, in overflow numbers because they are obviously attracted to them, in large part because they are the “same gender”. They have not been molesting underage girls, because they are the “wrong gender”. My contention is that these men are homosexual in orientaion,(if you had read my prior posts). They are “criminals” because they perpetrate the act of pedophilia, not homosexuality. Their are many homosexuals who do not commit pedophilia, as their are many heterosexuals who do not commit this crime as well. These perpetrators are molesting underage boys because they are homosexual in orientaion, and are attracted to them. Pedophilia is a form of sexual paraphilia/sexual deviance. I am not stating that they are “wrong” because they are homosexual in orientaion, quite the contrary. I am stating that they are repugnant criminals because the have committed the act of pedophilia. Sadly, they are homosexual in orientaion, this of course is not a crime, nor have I articulated that. It is disproportionate and inconceivable to have this many pedophiles in a single demographic(the Catholic Church)unless they were homosexual in orientaion! Gary, I suggest you type in (on your favorite search engine) the correlation between homosexuality in the priesthood and pedophilia or ephibophilia. You will be overwhelmed with the data that is provided. Coincidentally, I am not saying that homosexuality is somehow synoymous with pedophilia. The demographic and statistics are inclusive to the male priests in the Catholic Church. I also bare in mind, as a Catholic myself, that their are many more “good priests” than bad. Sadly, the media only exposes scandal and sensationalism because this is what sells. Seldom do you hear about the “good virtuous priest” who is serving the lepers of Molokai or the street people of “Skid Row”. It dosn’t sell papers or increase television ratings..
This is my last word on the matter. I believe I have shared enough information to substantiate my argument fairly conclusively. If you disagree, so be it..
One more thought Gary. You somehow made the connection between molestation in the Church as being on the same level as the abuses at Waco. Maybe you should rethink your postion Gary. In Waco, these “cultist” were stockpiling illegal firearms and explosives. David (cuckoo bird) Koresh was also molesting children and holding them against their will! This is called kidnapping Gary! I think your analogy was just a little off..
Gary,
Billy’s a unique case, and based on this topic, you’d be right to get the impression that we’re just persecuting him. However, this is his fourth or fifth major incarnation (plus a few minor ones) commenting on this blog.
Some of them he obviously trolls with (for those who care, I use troll in the original “posting solely to anger people” definition of troll. Think fishing, not bridges.) from the start and some he seems initially to want to engage. All of them end with him ranting, raving and trying to bait people with insults into responding in a like fashion.
I leave analysis of motivation to others, but the pattern has been established, and this time looks no different. The method is a little different (the obviously sarcastic praise is new as is the Big-foot obsession), but it’s the same basic story arch.
Gosh Gyges, I wish I could have as “meaningful” a value system as you. You are so worldly and sagacious. I should discontinue posting, as I am a mere simpleton…