Man shoots alleged child molester

[BabylonHoruv]

If you're driven to murder someone, even for a just cause such as molestation, you need to be evaluated. The correct course of action is to inform authorities and have them take care of it.

Not a response I'd expect to see get much play on a Discordian board.

What is the correct "Discordian" response?

Something not involving a reliance on the authorities to get things done.  I'm certainly not one to say someone isn't Discordian because they feel that the government and authorities are perfectly capable of taking care of all the bad guys and keeping them safe.  It's just not what I'd expect.

[President Television]

If you're driven to murder someone, even for a just cause such as molestation, you need to be evaluated. The correct course of action is to inform authorities and have them take care of it.

Not a response I'd expect to see get much play on a Discordian board.

What is the correct "Discordian" response?

I'd say it's less of a question of a "correct" response and more a question of a probable, expected one. Of course, I can't know for sure, but I think that's all Babylon was trying to say.

[Jasper]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

[BabylonHoruv]

If you're driven to murder someone, even for a just cause such as molestation, you need to be evaluated. The correct course of action is to inform authorities and have them take care of it.

Not a response I'd expect to see get much play on a Discordian board.

What is the correct "Discordian" response?

I'd say it's less of a question of a "correct" response and more a question of a probable, expected one. Of course, I can't know for sure, but I think that's all Babylon was trying to say.

yep, that is what i was saying.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait, what's it called when the kid is old enough to give consent? That's "just" coersion and rape, not child molestation, right?

Also, can we really call this guy a pedophile if he was interested in a 28-year-old guy?

Yeah, I guess if he was only a part-time pedo & stuck with regular rape the rest of the time, he was probably alright.

Also, having sex with adults makes sex with kids not pedophilia anymore.

[Triple Zero]

Plus, he did not write Alice in Wonderland.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Plus, he did not write Alice in Wonderland.

[Doktor Howl]

If you're driven to murder someone, even for a just cause such as molestation, you need to be evaluated. The correct course of action is to inform authorities and have them take care of it.

Not a response I'd expect to see get much play on a Discordian board.

What is the correct "Discordian" response?

Something not involving a reliance on the authorities to get things done.  I'm certainly not one to say someone isn't Discordian because they feel that the government and authorities are perfectly capable of taking care of all the bad guys and keeping them safe.  It's just not what I'd expect.

I see.  So the chaos of the Pentagon, for example, isn't real chaos.  And the only solution to everything is your ratty little Ayn Rand-ish belief in the individual, alone, in the jungle.

Is that more what you were expecting?

[Telarus]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

Nah, we have a few Dogmas, but they're all specifically worded to encourage rejection of codified sets of ideologies or dogmas.

(You may think this is pedantry, but there is a religious court case in Canada arguing over this exact thing. The first wording means "your group is not a religion", the second wording means "your group is a religion".)

[Template]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

Nah, we have a few Dogmas, but they're all specifically worded to encourage rejection of codified sets of ideologies or dogmas.

(You may think this is pedantry, but there is a religious court case in Canada arguing over this exact thing. The first wording means "your group is not a religion", the second wording means "your group is a religion".)

And Discordianism is a religion.

[Doktor Howl]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

Nah, we have a few Dogmas, but they're all specifically worded to encourage rejection of codified sets of ideologies or dogmas.

(You may think this is pedantry, but there is a religious court case in Canada arguing over this exact thing. The first wording means "your group is not a religion", the second wording means "your group is a religion".)

And Discordianism is a religion.

No, it's a social club for misanthropes.

[Template]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

Nah, we have a few Dogmas, but they're all specifically worded to encourage rejection of codified sets of ideologies or dogmas.

(You may think this is pedantry, but there is a religious court case in Canada arguing over this exact thing. The first wording means "your group is not a religion", the second wording means "your group is a religion".)

And Discordianism is a religion.

No, it's a social club for misanthropes.

Oh,   

[Jasper]

There is

NO

correct "Discordian" response.  Discordianism in principle is the lack of a codified set of ideologies or dogmas.

Nah, we have a few Dogmas, but they're all specifically worded to encourage rejection of codified sets of ideologies or dogmas.

(You may think this is pedantry, but there is a religious court case in Canada arguing over this exact thing. The first wording means "your group is not a religion", the second wording means "your group is a religion".)

And Discordianism is a religion.

No, it's a social club for misanthropes.

This.  This, delicious contradiction in terms. 

[LMNO]

Wait, what's it called when the kid is old enough to give consent? That's "just" coersion and rape, not child molestation, right?

Also, can we really call this guy a pedophile if he was interested in a 28-year-old guy?

Yeah, I guess if he was only a part-time pedo & stuck with regular rape the rest of the time, he was probably alright.

Also, having sex with adults makes sex with kids not pedophilia anymore.

Of course, it's completely obvious that I wasn't attempting to exonerate the guy; and I suppose it goes without saying that I was trying to point out how much weirder this case is than your standard pedophile, once you start thinking about how long this went on for.



I mean, you're all smart enough to see that, right?




Oh.  

[Template]

Wait, what's it called when the kid is old enough to give consent? That's "just" coersion and rape, not child molestation, right?

Also, can we really call this guy a pedophile if he was interested in a 28-year-old guy?

Yeah, I guess if he was only a part-time pedo & stuck with regular rape the rest of the time, he was probably alright.

Also, having sex with adults makes sex with kids not pedophilia anymore.

Of course, it's completely obvious that I wasn't attempting to exonerate the guy; and I suppose it goes without saying that I was trying to point out how much weirder this case is than your standard pedophile, once you start thinking about how long this went on for.



I mean, you're all smart enough to see that, right?




Oh.  

Looks like you tried to remove the (tentative) label of moral condemnation from the guy, without maintaining a condemnation of what he's accused of.

Your earlier post really sounds a lot like, "Bill can't be gay--he has a wife and kids!"  There's a little bit of fudging between there and here, but it's a close idea.

... hmmm ...

I think you accidentally used a phrase common in rhetorical questions.  It gives an impression like you're somewhat confident in the answer.  That's my guess.