2024-10-12, 09:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 2024-10-12, 09:39 AM by Laird. Edited 1 time in total.)
(2024-10-11, 09:14 AM)Omar G. Wrote: I did update my post a bit more to clarify. The usage of the word _pedophilia_ seems to be getting us to nowhere.
That's better.
There is though a deeper problem revealed by your inclusion of that sentence in the first place, and your general approach, as is made clear in the post to which I'm responding, in which you write:
(2024-10-11, 09:14 AM)Omar G. Wrote: What matters here is the difference between child abuse, being illicit, and whatever else, that is licit.
No, what matters here is the sexualisation of children by paedophiles in any way, shape or form, whether legal or not.
You are simply stating your personal political views here, which are out of step with conventional standards.
Similarly, you write in the post you've updated that "The distribution of child pictures is questionable on privacy grounds". No, the distribution of child pictures on that forum is not just "questionable" on privacy grounds, it is highly offensive on the grounds that it sexualises children for the depraved gratification of paedophiles.
The admin of such a site should rightly be ostracised from polite society, but you quite blithely affirm to pebel that "no apparent reason for banning your account or completely blocking you from asking for support seems to exist".
Let's now look at the line that you've edited several times. What is its purpose? Why did you feel a need to prefix your post with it? It is strictly redundant, but in the context of the rest of the post, it is clear that it is included to downplay the seriousness of paedophilia, and to not-so-subtly rebuke those who do take it seriously.
People are not stupid. Members noticed all of this. Lone puppy clearly did, and although he has extrapolated a little too far beyond the not-so-subtle implications of your post, he is right to notice its minimisation of the seriousness of paedophilia.
So, the community (and staff in particular) have a choice: do we (they) tacitly allow this libertine approach to paedophilia to prevail as the community standard by default by going unchallenged, or do we (they) clearly and unequivocally affirm that your permissive views on this matter do not reflect community standards, and that paedophiles who set up forums on which to sexualise children, and then complain about being "discriminated" against and brazenly declare that they do not "have anything to hide", are not given cover by us but are removed and excluded from our community?