Zone1 "burned" by USMB

[Dogmaphobe]

I have been told by a mod recently that the plan here is that I will be "burned" by USMB for my opposition to the sexualization of children by targeting me for posts that do not actually cross any line, but are merely close to the line.

This strikes me as very prejudicial and targeted.

I would like an explanation as to why this place is targeting certain individuals who have been admitted by USMB to have broken no rules?

 

[BackAgain]

If what you were told is true, it’s obvious why.

Some people believe silencing their opponents is superior to free discussion.

Our Founders and Framers would be shocked.

Even though it isn’t a true First Amendment issue, it’s the same principle. One would imagine that a political message board named after the nation that (from its beginning) believed that ideas could be and should be debated freely and openly would aspire to free and open debate.

 

[Donald H]

Opposition to the sexualization of children isn't breaking any rules. Can you be more clear on the accusation?

 

[Moonglow]

In before the lock over TOS violation violation.

 

[Moonglow]

If what you were told is true, it’s obvious why.

Some people believe silencing their opponents is superior to free discussion.

Our Founders and Framers would be shocked.

Even though it isn’t a true First Amendment issue, it’s the same principle. One would imagine that a political message board named after the nation that (from its beginning) believed that ideas could be and should be debated freely and openly would aspire to free and open debate.

The founders were


In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England's shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys. Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law.

Sexuality, Marriage, and Age of Consent Laws, 1700-2000​

marrying nine year old girls

 

[Coyote]

I have been told by a mod recently that the plan here is that I will be "burned" by USMB for my opposition to the sexualization of children by targeting me for posts that do not actually cross any line, but are merely close to the line.

This strikes me as very prejudicial and targeted.

I would like an explanation as to why this place is targeting certain individuals who have been admitted by USMB to have broken no rules?

That is funny you didn’t include a link to the post.

This is what you were told:

Please. Spare us the disingenuous claims of innocence.

You: let’s see how close I can get to the line by a accusing members of being pedo without quite literally saying the P word.

Play with fire, you are going to get burned.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Opposition to the sexualization of children isn't breaking any rules. Can you be more clear on the accusation?

The moderation of USMB said that if I stopped short of a rules violation, USMB planned on burning.

The excuse given was that I was playing with fire for stopping short of an actual violation

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That is funny you didn’t include a link to the post.

This is what you were told:

Yes, you said you would burn me for getting close to a line, but not crossing.

Thank you for linking to the statement indicating this USMB policy that targets specific individuals.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The moderation of USMB said that if I stopped short of a rules violation, USMB planned on burning.

The excuse given was that I was playing with fire for stopping short of an actual violation

Just sort yourself out and keep clear of the paedo word, and stop insinuating close to that word, then you won't be having such a hissy fit

 

[Coyote]

Yes, you said you would burn me for getting close to a line, but not crossing.

Thank you for linking to the statement indicating this USMB policy that targets specific individuals.

You could have easily linked but chose not to. Most likely because you are choosing to misrepresent it.

 

[Unkotare]

I have been told by a mod recently that the plan here is that I will be "burned" by USMB for my opposition to the sexualization of children by targeting me for posts that do not actually cross any line, but are merely close to the line.

This strikes me as very prejudicial and targeted.

I would like an explanation as to why this place is targeting certain individuals who have been admitted by USMB to have broken no rules?

You need professional help.

 

[Coyote]

Just sort yourself out and keep clear of the paedo word, and stop insinuating close to that word, then you won't be having such a hissy fit

Honestly it isn’t that hard to do. Attack the arguments, don’t try to see if you can get away with calling members pedo…don’t say it in such away mods have to think about because usually at that point dancing too close to the line gets interpreted as crossing it.

 

[Donald H]

The moderation of USMB said that if I stopped short of a rules violation, USMB planned on burning.

The excuse given was that I was playing with fire for stopping short of an actual violation

I really don't see that as much of an issue against the board or the moderator. Details of the offense or the alleged offense aren't known publicly and so this can't be decided without know what was actually said by all parties.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You need professional help.

For objecting to threats that my postings did not have to break rules for me to be punished?

If you think that is a sign of needing professional help,bI would advise you not to go into the field of psychology.

 

[rightwinger]

The moderation of USMB said that if I stopped short of a rules violation, USMB planned on burning.

The excuse given was that I was playing with fire for stopping short of an actual violation

A lot of Pedophiles say the same thing
Not saying you are a pedophile, just that many pedophiles say the same thing

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You could have easily linked but chose not to. Most likely because you are choosing to misrepresent it.

I didn't misrepresent it at all. Your threatening words stand on their own and any honest person can note the threat.

 

[Coyote]

Opposition to the sexualization of children isn't breaking any rules. Can you be more clear on the accusation?

It isn’t opposition to sexualization of children, he’s upset because he isn’t allowed to accuse other members of being pedo.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A lot of Pedophiles say the same thing
Not saying you are a pedophile, just that many pedophiles say the same thing

Thank you for pointing out the extreme double standard here.

Being a lestist has many benefits here. Being anything else, not so much.

 

[Coyote]

I didn't misrepresent it at all. Your threatening words stand on their own and any honest person can note the threat.

There is considerable doubt that you are capable of recognizing that quality given the nature of the thread you started here. My suggestion is that you PM a mod and make your case for being targeted rather than starting a thread here.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It isn’t opposition to sexualization of children, he’s upset because he isn’t allowed to accuse other members of being pedo.

Show me where I accused anybody of being a pedo in terms any more direct than the ones rightwinger just used?