As usual, lacking the desire to refrain from further participation in this thread, and grossly underestimating the the benefit of occupying myself with other matters, here goes.
(passing DKaiser a bowl of popcorn)
catgirl wrote:
second: sarnoga, this was a really long reply.
Ooops, sorry. Maybe we should promulgate some rules and guidelines for post lengths so I may have a better chance of being less offensive.
catgirl wrote:
i never said that something should be censored. i just vote for adding rules and ethical standards regarding the files that are supposed to be published here.
Hm.... that is censorship, sweety.
catgirl wrote:
just like there are ethical standards for surgery, medical care and atomic bombs, there should be ethical standards for the contents of hypnosis files.
How interesting.
Though I can't really imagine applying ethical standards for atomic bombs. Perhaps one could attempt to formulate such standards for their use. The problem with that is arriving at a consensus of what those standards should be and then finding a way to impose those standards on those few who have the atomic bombs and can use them.
As for ethical standards for surgery and medical care, there are various ethical standards employed in relation to those activities. Depending on the location where the surgery or medical care is being performed there may also be regulations that may or may not take into account various "ethical standards."
Generally speaking, surgery, medical care, and atomic bombs are neither means of communication nor expression of thoughts and ideas. While theoretically one may express thoughts or ideas in the manner in which they use atomic bombs, or on whom they use them, that expression is secondary to the physical result of using those bombs. The same would be true for performing surgery or providing medical care or for receiving the same.
Hypnosis files, on the other hand, are inseparable from the thoughts and ideas expressed therein. That is the content of those files. That is not to say you cannot attempt to regulate hypnosis files by requiring they conform to certain rules or ethical standards. However, when you start regulating the content of files other than your own, that is to say the files of another, whether you do so through rules or ethical standards, that is censorship. You may or may not find it desirable. You may or may not find that censorship acceptable. But it is censorship, regardless of what label you pin on it.
catgirl wrote:
and i did not talk about crossdressing or some weird fetish. i was talking about severe menthal disorders.
Phewww... thank god we cleared that up.
catgirl wrote:
your criticism about the dsm-iv or icd-10 definition of menthal disorders is not justified. first of all, these classification systems are an international consensus of leading international menthal health professionals. the taxonomy is primary aiming at classifying types of patients for the purpose of billing the health insurance. what is ill or what should be treated in the individual case depends on the judgement of the menthal health professional.
I believe you were the one who referred to the DSM in your attempt to promote or or justify regulation or censorship of the content of hypnosis files here on WMM. You also appealed to the DSM as authority in support of your particular interpretation of what those rules should be and again cited to it for authority for the "ethical standards" you hoped would be adopted as the basis for your regulation or censorship of file content.
While the DSM in particular, and the mental health profession in general, are certainly susceptible of criticism, that would be the subject of another topic or post. You state that the purpose of the DSM is "classifying types of patients for the purpose of billing the health insurance." As such I really have little interest in it. It is you who tried to cite it for authority in support of your "ethical standards." I was simply pointing out that it is unsuitable for that purpose, as you apparently agree by pointing out the intended purpose of the DSM.
catgirl wrote:
the fact that homosexuality was removed from dsm doesn't mean anyone was cured or treated wrong. it just means that the international community has come to a consensus that the "disorder" either wasn't properly defined or research showed it doesn't deserve the status of a disorder that is billed for the health insurance. when you talk about transvestism, fetishism etc. you are omitting an important part: in the last thirty years hardly anyone was diagnosed or treated for this problem. a patient would have to go to a psychatrist and declare he is having severe problems regarding his family life, job, or other reasons because of transvestism. and most professionals would not treat the patient to stop the crossdressing, but treat the patient with marriage counseling, strengthening his ego etc. my old professor at the university always told me: do not code any diagnosis regarding to sexuality! but there are situations, when the diagnosis can be coded. think of the former pilot of queen elisabeth II: he was an elite army pilot. he murdered lots of women, not raping them, only to steal their underwear and make pictures of wearing them. obviously the transvestism is in relation to a forensic case. and the crossdressing has prognostic value (IN THIS INDIVIDUAL). again, i'm not saying that all crossdressers are criminals. but there are certain cases that can be pathologic and linked to a state where a compulsive disorder causes a criminal act for which the subject is not holding criminal responsibility.
It is nice to hear you have an education. Your point is? If you are saying that there is no causality between cross dressing and criminality, I would agree. Perhaps I am missing how that related to the topic.
catgirl wrote:
now, to come back to the topic of anorexia and depression: i did not hear any complaint about saying these two disorders are not disorders.
Actually, that never was the topic. The post subject, as chosen by you, was files causing mental illness. In the body of the text you expressed your opinion that....
catgirl wrote:there is a number of files on the site that intend to cause serious mental illness - depression, anorexia, etc.. explicit and without any good reason. i don't know what kind of people are behind such ideas, but i think these files should not be allowed here.
Quite frankly, I don't give a rats ass about anorexia and depression or the DMS. Had you started a topic about that I doubt I would have bothered getting involved. I might or might not have become involved in the discussion if it had been limited to the stated post subject of "files causing mental illness."
What I was responding to was your statement; ".... i think these files should not be allowed here."
catgirl wrote:
you could say that the definition of anorexia is too sharp. voting for a lower boundary. like saying 60 lbs for a six feet tall person is ok. but i don't think you will succeed in eliminating this from any psychatric manual. i think you would also talk differently if you had ever treated such patients before. same applies to depression.
I could say that. But I didn't say that. I don't care how those in the field of mental health define any particular behavior until someone tries to use those definitions to restrict my activities and behaviors. I have no interest in editing or contributing in any way to any psychiatric manual.
I am against censorship of files here on WMM beyond the criteria adopted by EMG. It is only when the mental health profession begins to meddle in affairs that effect me that I am concerned with how they define or describe things.
As I stated in my previous post, if a file promotes unlawful harmful violence against an unwilling person or if a file will bring legal trouble to this site, then I am in favor of it being removed. Just so that you are clear on definitions, that too is censorship. However, I am opposed to any censorship that goes further. I believe the standard adopted by EMG is adequate for that purpose and moving the line in the direction you advocate would be detrimental.
catgirl wrote:
last thought: any community requires rules and moderation.
Spoken like a true regulator. Your elementary school teachers would be proud of you and likely paste a gold star on your forehead.
catgirl wrote:
otherwise a small number of egoistic, sadistic people will spread havoc over the site.
Then you must think that is what is happening here. I do not!
catgirl wrote:
it is just like in real life. the amount of moderation can lead from laissez faire to control freak admins.
The real question being debated here is where to draw that line. I am pleased with where it is. You apparently want to move it in the direction of more regulation. As you mentioned, you have your own site. Feel free to regulate that site to your heart's content. It is yours. Do with it as you please. I prefer EMG's approach of minimal regulation. My personal opinion is that it is largely responsible for the huge number of contributed files. I feel privileged to be a part of that and love that I can post a file, even a bad file, or a file that few like, a nose picker file or a doggy file or any damn thing I get the mind to without getting it kicked or having to get approval.
In the time I have been here I have seen an explosion of the files available to site users. Some are pay files, the majority are free or will be. I am proud to have contributed and am pleased that you and tanyaslave are also contributing members of this site. It is impossible to have the variety we have without ruffling some feathers along the sway. This site has come awful close to having something for everyone. In the process it probably has something to offend everyone.
I would love it if my list of files contained something that could please everyone. No doubt in the process I would have something to offend everyone. If there is anyone out there who has not found at least one of my files offensive, I hope they speak up. I may yet be able to remedy the situation.
catgirl wrote:
i personally think that i saved a lot of people on my own site from a small number of psychopathic hypnotists whose primary goal is gaining control over people, manipulating and harming them with the help of hypnosis.
Congratulations.
catgirl wrote:
there is a reason why crack is not sold in supermarkets. before you advocate for complete freedom of choice etc. you should define who is responsible for any damage that results from people who make bad choices. like listening to a file that induces depression, leading to suicide after repeated listening. i am sure that nobody will feel responsible for such a result here. not even the submitter of the file.
Yeah, the reason crack is not sold by the supermarkets is that it is unlawful and being unlawful other established crack merchants would take unkindly to the competition. Since they are denied access to the courts to settle their disputes, they would likely resort to extra-judicial means. Still, alluding to sale of crack cocaine or some other perceived horror is the style of argument typical of censors.
It goes like this: If we don't regulate what people think or say or what ideas they expose themselves to, before you know it they will be selling crack in the supermarkets. But let's not go there. The regulation of drugs in this country (both prescription and that not allowed to be prescribed) causes far more damage than the drugs could ever do. But that should be the topic for another thread if it concerns you.
catgirl wrote:
the anonymity of the internet often leads to a kind of anomic structure. a place where rules are absent or not enforced. like child pornography sites.
Again, that style of argument is not based on logic but rather is an attempt to stir up unreasoned emotion and opinion in support of your position for more regulation. Do you really believe that lack of regulation on this and other internet sites is likely to cause such an erosion of standards and values that it will in turn create social instability? One can only hope.
Your comment leaves me wondering what world you live in. In the world I live in, anonymity on the internet is mostly illusory. If one wants to truly hide their identity, that is to make it untraceable, it takes a great deal of trouble. Not to mention that if the internet activity involves the exchange of money, most money exchanges, especially electronic ones leave a money trail. Bringing up child pornography sites is a desperate attempt to cloud the issue. It is the typical reactionary regulatory rhetoric used by those who want to bring all aspects of the internet under strict government supervision and has no basis in fact.
In the almost 20 years that I have been connecting to the internet I have never once managed to stumble across one of these legendary child pornography sites. One must assume, were there such sites, they are either operated for money or if not for money out of an altruistic motivation to provide child pornography for free to those who seek it. That is not to say that if you look hard enough you might not find some erotic or pornographic images of humans under the arbitrary government imposed age of 18 somewhere on the usenet news groups where those with access can get it for free. But for the most part child pornography sites are a non-existent bogeyman used to scare the public into accepting more aggressive government regulation of the internet.
catgirl wrote:
now, to provide an example for such a file (please explain to me in detail, where the erotic or productive part of this file is supposed to be, sarnoga):
You are referring to the file below? Your request for an explanation from me about that file is what is known as burden shifting. You have posted below some of the comments on the file. Some of those comments are by the author of the file in which the motivation for writing, producing and posting the file was explained. I think tanyaslave's explanation is sufficient and more than enough to satisfy me, not that any explanation is needed. I certainly do not need to justify a files creation or placement on this site, nor does tanyaslave need to justify contributions to the site.
You, catgirl, are the one proposing censorship and removal of a file. When asking that a file, other than your own, be removed from the site, the burden is on you to justify that removal. That is and should be a very heavy burden. As EMG said,
EMG wrote:
However, the file states EXACTLY what it is about, it doesn't lie, it warns that you could end up depressed and is that REALLY that much worse than my file that leaves you feeling degraded and humiliated if you don't lose weight. That tells you you're fat and the only way you'll have worth is to lose weight.
EMG also explained how he makes judgments on removing a file for content.
EMG wrote:
The files on this site represent choices, choices that people make that they believe will make their life better(or at least the way they want it). Not many of us will ever listen to Living on the Floor, but to some people it speaks. I know what my fetish's are, and I know that everyone else has theirs. I try not to step on those unless it involves something blatantly illegal.
That is the standard. I happen to like it. If you can convince EMG that the file you want removed is blatantly illegal then he may do so. But the burden is clearly on the one asking for removal.
I agree with EMG that users on his site should be careful in their decisions. I do not agree with you that others should make those decisions for them and take the choices out of their hands.
catgirl wrote:
(ps: i reported a complaint to the admins of this site regarding this file before. i don't want to start a new discussion about every new shit file on this site - like a bottom up strategy, i want rules and ethical standards what is defined as acceptable - top down strategy. discussions about details,experiences with acceptable files can be done in the rating and comment section of each file)
So there you have it. You want rules and "ethical standards" to suit your tastes. You may not like the word, but that is censorship. You want a safe place to play where you can abandon responsibility and play with anything you desire, safe in the knowledge that someone else has taken the responsibility of removing anything that might be dangerous to you.
If that is what you are looking for, you are in the wrong place. Not that I am trying to run you off, but if the freedom and chaos of this site makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should go find a safer place to play. I like things here as they are and am willing to accept responsibility for my own choices. I am willing to accept the risk that something here could harm me if I do not choose wisely. I do not want others making those choices for me. Yes, I may make a mistake and make a bad choice. But at least it will be my mistake. I would rather live with the consequences of my own choices than have to live with the consequences of others making the choices for me.
I am sorry you do not want that responsibility. If you do not want to have further discussion in this forum over the content of this site and its files I am sure that will be something we can live with.
You said that you complained to the admins of this site about the file you dislike and apparently were disappointed with their response or lack of action. Now that EMG has clearly explained his criteria you need no longer waste your time and effort in complaining to him about files that do not cross that line.
If it is too much trouble for you to post in the forum pointing out problems you see with other files that do not merit removal by EMG, then all I can say is they must not concern you all that much.
I see in the comments below that the author explained why the file was written produced and posted. That explanation is good enough for me.
To be blunt, as I see from many of your posts is a style you favor, I think your reaction to this file is an over reaction and my suggestion would be to forget it. There are many files on this site I do not care for. So what. There are also a lot of good files. If someone likes them, enjoys them, or benefits from them in some way then I am glad they are there. I think Liann pointed out some possible benefits of the file you mention. It may be just what is needed by someone. Why should you get to choose for them. There are many that would have to leave here unsatisfied if a file had to fit my own personal definition of good, or your definition, or anyone's.
I don't know for sure why I bothered to respond further in this thread as I doubt that what I write will have much impact. I suspect I did so out of a perverse desire to amuse DKaiser and promote his excited popcorn munching. Anyway, I think I am tired of beating this horse. It has been dead a long time now.
Best wishes to all. May we continue to enjoy here on WMM the chaos and freedom of a minimally regulated website.
Sarnoga