Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth, Wh

This forum is founded on discussions about T Campbell's work (alone and with artist partners).

Moderators: TCampbell, Gisele

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby Pink Freud » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:19 am

Do you like electricity? Because Thomas Edison killed a lot of animals, including an elephant, just because he was mad at Nicola Tesla.

Better start turning out those lights.
User avatar
Pink Freud
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:13 am
Location: here

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby LadyObvious23 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:44 am

Yes because that's exactly...are you fucking kidding me?


ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?


Because I don't think using something by a fucking pedophile is OKAY. This is the shit you came up with. OH WOW.


Like SERIOUSLY? It's a fucking thing that's been discredited alongside most of a certain 'shrink's' work. I think it shouldn't be fucking used because it's just fucking wrong. But yes. Let's go with your idea. Because that's the SANE thing to do.
Growing old is inevitable, Growing up is optional.
'As long as you cater to my every whim, fullfill my every wish, obey my every command and never argue with what I say I shall be your slave forever.'
User avatar
LadyObvious23
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:42 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby Pink Freud » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:58 am

The crime itself is irrelephant, as is who may or may not agree with its validity. That is what you do not seem to grasp.
User avatar
Pink Freud
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:13 am
Location: here

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby LadyObvious23 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:59 am

....pedophilia is irrelevant? Kids being abused by a bastard is irrelevant?



Your pun is disgusting and you're awful.
Growing old is inevitable, Growing up is optional.
'As long as you cater to my every whim, fullfill my every wish, obey my every command and never argue with what I say I shall be your slave forever.'
User avatar
LadyObvious23
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:42 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby Pink Freud » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:05 am

Never claimed to be otherwise.
User avatar
Pink Freud
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:13 am
Location: here

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby timemonkey » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:38 am

LadyObvious23 wrote:....pedophilia is irrelevant? Kids being abused by a bastard is irrelevant?



Your pun is disgusting and you're awful.


Pedophilia is irrelevant when considering the validity of the information gained. It's morally horrific, nobody is arguing that, but information gained because of said horrific actions are still useful. Yes, the theory was discredited but it still contributed to our knowledge of the subject. Horrible person, neutral information.
timemonkey
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:24 am

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby TCampbell » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:58 pm

LadyObvious has been banned from the forums. Enough is enough. The old rule about insulting other posters still exists, and while my enforcement might be irregular as I can't devote a lot of time to them these days, I'm still going to enforce it when I see it. That limited time also means that a warning on my part would be pointless as I wouldn't be able to follow up on it. (And from looking over the posts and the general eye I've developed for these things, I just don't think it would do any good in the long run.)

For a long time, she seemed able to express her anger about many topics without insulting other posters directly that I saw, although I'm far from reading every post-- and there was the mitigating factor of supportive comments in this forum's more social branches-- but those days are behind us now.

I'm sure this move will provoke some response on some social medium, but I'm not really worried about that. I'm kinda sorry for the sake of the rest of you that I didn't act sooner.
User avatar
TCampbell
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby TCampbell » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:33 am

I've been asked politely to reconsider. I'll think about it. It is probably true that my own scheduling inconveniences shouldn't be the important factor.

Edit: Unbanned on a probation basis.
User avatar
TCampbell
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby Pink Freud » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:42 am

If it's for the insults on my account, it's no skin off my nose, I pretty much expected them.
User avatar
Pink Freud
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:13 am
Location: here

Re: Re-read week 121: Mixed Nuts 2 - Darren, Darren Danforth

Postby Lia S » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:04 am

Kinsey did use “data” provided to him by a pedophile, but as far as I can tell there is no evidence that he raped children himself. Based on the available evidence, it would not be accurate to call Kinsey a pedophile.

That said, what Kinsey wrote about the sexuality of children based on what that pedophile told him and not on memories of adults is useless, because of it being from a single and untrustworthy source.

If for the sake of the argument we pretend the information is reliable, it would not be unethical to make use of it for science. Pretending not to know facts does not undo the crime through which they were obtained. However it would be unethical to pay a criminal source with money, fame, attention, or anything else. That leads to a problem: Kinsey most likely did (inadvertantly?) pay his source with wanted attention, which makes him an unethical source himself. Making use of the data means having to quote him by name, which means paying him in fame. The only clean way to use the data would be to quote it from someone who wrote a report about Kinsey being bad rather than from Kinsey himself. Anyway that’s all hypothetical because as I said the data is useless.

Medical/biological facts known because of unethical experiments are slightly different: one can verify the used methodology. These are not useless because they are not anecdotal but obtained from experiments that would be repeatable if they were not unethical. I think it’s OK to use such facts as long as it is done in a way that can not be misunderstood as approval of the crimes committed by the source.

Edison killing an elephant is still different - this didn’t tell us anything about electricity that we didn’t or couldn’t know from different and more scientific experiments. One could ask if LO believes we should not use electricity if its discovery had necessarily involved sexual experiments on children. Which would be a very weird question but perhaps an interesting hypothetical.
Artemisia: if we cannot sympathize or understand then all we claim to be as human beings is just marsh gas
Valerie: Lia knows how to turn that frown upside-down. :D
User avatar
Lia S
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:53 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests