Stack Exchange
log in

discussion about question 41590


export all events for this room

Starred posts

Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 18:58
Not sure what the flags are about in here, but here's an outsider's take on the question under discussion: The question about identifying age markers in general seems to be perfectly legitimate. Whether or not it's *actually* on-topic for Biology.SE is an exercise left to "native residents" of that site. However, the child pornography elements really are not needed to support the question. And they're obviously causing more controversy than their worth.

I say, keep the question but nuke the child porn bits. And then let Biology.SE regulars decide whether it's properly on-topic.
3
Lightness Races in Orbit
Dec 17, 2015 19:46
Why am I invited back into this total nonsense? All of you go for a beer or a lie-down.
2
Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 19:39
@fuq I've re-read the flagged items. There's nothing in there calling you a pervert. Troll, maybe - and that's not in the least bit unjustified in this context - but not pervert.
2
Mad Scientist
Dec 17, 2015 18:50
@fuq Just remove it entirely, and ask about markers of age that don't require actually examining the person, but can be seen on video/images
2
Mad Scientist
Dec 17, 2015 18:48
@fuq No, but I agree with the argument that the rather elaborate child pornography part of your question should have been omitted.
2
AMR
Dec 17, 2015 18:46
@fuq You continually ask Why, but then when people honestly tell you Why, and it doesn't conform to how you view yourself, you feel they are attacking you. It lacks maturity, and you may want to sit down and honestly evaluate yourself, because there is a disconnect between how you perceive yourself and how other people are likely perceiving you.
2
Mad Scientist
Dec 17, 2015 18:46
@fuq There is nothing offensive about these posts
2
Feeds
Dec 17, 2015 19:49
Mad Scientist has frozen this room.
Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 19:45
@fuq Perhaps not, but it's very clear to see why people might think you are.
Mad Scientist
Dec 17, 2015 19:44
@Iszi Which is what I and some other users already said earlier when the whole thing started
Chris
Dec 17, 2015 19:44
@Iszi Yes, exactly.
Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 19:43
@Chris @MadScientist: To re-iterate, I'm not a native to Biology.SE but I feel the question would be perfectly valid without the child porn bits. Unfortunately, those parts are probably the only reason it's being down/close-voted.
Chris
Dec 17, 2015 19:38
@fuq I don't see anybody calling you a pervert or anything similar, so please calm down.
ArtOfCode
Dec 17, 2015 19:31
@fuq I'm not biased.
Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 19:30
@fuq I think they asked for a link to the chat quote where someone actually called you perverted.
Mad Scientist
Dec 17, 2015 19:28
@fuq Nobody said you were perverted, please just drop it
YviDe
Dec 17, 2015 19:28
Nobody called you a pervert. If they did, please cite the transcript
ArtOfCode
Dec 17, 2015 19:25
@fuq I know. Matter of opinion, but it's hardly offensive unless you're trying to be offended.
ArtOfCode
Dec 17, 2015 19:23
That reads more like stating a point of view or a fact, to me.
ArtOfCode
Dec 17, 2015 19:22
@fuq Yes, I'm aware of what "salacious" means. It's not directed at you.
ArtOfCode
Dec 17, 2015 19:20
I see nothing either insulting, or suggesting you're a pervert there.
Iszi
Dec 17, 2015 19:06
@fuq Court cases are rarely, if ever, decided based on one piece or type of evidence alone. In most cases, they won't need to rely on any sort of image-based age determination. And in many jurisdictions, the definition of "child pornography" is so subjective to begin with that empirical measurements may even be rendered completely meaningless.
YviDe
Dec 17, 2015 19:05
I can see no indirect claims that you are "perverted"
Lightness Races in Orbit
Dec 17, 2015 18:47
That is all.
AMR
Dec 17, 2015 18:42
@fuq No. You are incapable of accepting valid criticism.
AMR
Dec 17, 2015 17:59
@fuq My suggestion would be to delete it.