Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[SassyIrishLass]

This thread. Why do you think that children reading pornographic material is acceptable?

Enabling

 

[Road Runner]

You sure are trying to get rid of me.

Goodness -- object to showing kids illustrations of child sex and you are totally triggered!

He knows you're on the right track that's why.

 

[BlueGin]

You sure are trying to get rid of me.

Goodness -- object to showing kids illustrations of child sex and you are totally triggered!

He’s hopeful. But what lefties like him don’t get is we have withstood way more verbal abuse and now can’t be intimidated

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yep. Just like when they ignored a poster who verbally abused me about being the cause of a friends death ( ie they offed themselves for knowing me). These people aren’t exactly salt if the earth .

There are different types of narcissists, but Malignant narcissists are the worst. As long as they can manipulate you, they keep you around and they are VERY adept at manipulation. Cross them, though, and they want to destroy you. They enjoy cruelty in all its forms but only turn that cruelty on certain people. They are quite good at masking it with others.

Also, one quality the malignant narcissist has mastered is the ability to turn themselves into the victim, even when they are the obvious aggressor.

 

[Zincwarrior]

This thread. Why do you think that children reading pornographic material is acceptable?

That's fundamentally unserious.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He knows you're on the right track that's why.

That is why I am the most threatening to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly.

But it’s perfect okay to call posters they don’t like. Racist,White Supremicists,Homophobes,Nazi’s,terrorists,Taliban etc…

You need to separate the terms that are not illegal from those that are illegal however.

There is no law against being racist, white supremacist, homophobic, Nazi, KKK, terrorist, or Taliban, at least so long as these do not demonstrate their beliefs by breaking the law. Is it classy to accuse people of these things when they are not? Of course not. It demonstrates a woeful lack of character in some cases. But on a board where those kinds of insults are a blood sport, neither are they defamatory.

Nor is it illegal to believe grooming or pedophilia are okay, however reprehensible, even evil, such belief is. It is the acting out of those beliefs that is illegal and a groomer or pedophile is one who is acting out. To accuse somebody of being a groomer or pedophile without specific proof they are acting out those horrendously evil and illegal activities is defamatory and should not be allowed on a public forum. It is defamatory until they are tried and convicted in a court of law for those offenses.

We can certainly tell such people what we think about their support for such behavior though.

 

[Road Runner]

Dogmaphobe, it's exactly the same reason Democrats want to get rid of Trump. They're terrified of him. I would consider it an honor.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Stop the reactions noob. I'm serious

You're a lame little man.... and an unhealthy interest in children.

React to that

 

[Road Runner]

That's fundamentally unserious.

I don't care just answer the question.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't care just answer the question.

Good luck on that

 

[Coyote]

If you hate pedos then why don't you want them exposed to the whole entire board if there's evidence to back it up?

What evidence? That you that don’t like their political views? That believe what others say about sans actual evidence? If you have evidence, then why won’t you contact a Sr Mod?

What happens when you “expose” someone who is not a pedo because you feel convinced he is, maybe for no more reason that he is generally un likable?

On this messageboard, we have no way of really knowing, but we can review the “evidence” and if appropriate contact authorities. That has been done. What you are suggesting is we allow vigilante lynch mobs to determine who to target.

Is that a good idea? What if youwere on the receiving end?

On another website of mine a fifteen year old girl was being sexually harassed by a thirty-three year old man. He threatened to kidnap her and force her to cuddle with him. ALL of my online friends reposted the warning about him in my status update thread because we wanted to make sure he was exposed and he couldn't hurt other children on that website until the police got a hold of him.

And in that situation, you had very clear solid evidence. If you had that, and brought it to the Sr Mods, they would let you go after him.

Do you have anything as strong for anyone here?

That could never happen here because you care more about protecting the pedophile than the kids. End of story.

End of story, your mind is made up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What evidence? That you that don’t like their political views? That believe what others say about sans actual evidence? If you have evidence, then why won’t you contact a Sr Mod?

What happens when you “expose” someone who is not a pedo because you feel convinced he is, maybe for no more reason that he is generally un likable?

On this messageboard, we have no way of really knowing, but we can review the “evidence” and if appropriate contact authorities. That has been done. What you are suggesting is we allow vigilante lynch mobs to determine who to target.

Is that a good idea? What if youwere on the receiving end?




And in that situation, you had very clear solid evidence. If you had that, and brought it to the Sr Mods, they would let you go after him.

Do you have anything as strong for anyone here?




End of story, your mind is made up.

So is yours..... and that's a problem.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not angry about the ban on the word "groomer," but I can understand why others would be angry.

I think there might be less anger about this if the word being banned were not used almost exclusively by supporters of one of the major political parties when addressing a supporter of the other, and if it were not the only word banned.

Somone suggested banning the word "racist" and they make a good point. We hate racists so calling someone a racist is inflamatory. Since it is used most by members of the party who are most at risk for groomer shaming, that was offered as a way to be fair.

Unfortunately, the party that most often calls people "racist" is also at risk for racist shaming. The two sides have much different definitions of that word. When someone I am debating supports a racist policy, I want to be able to say so.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Here's a third cent, though. This thread seems to be sucking the life out of other threads.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He’s hopeful. But what lefties like him don’t get is we have withstood way more verbal abuse and now can’t be intimidated

I'm constantly having people wanting me to leave, and of course, when Coyote is involved, it is usually a group endeavor, but I figure that the more they want me to leave the more I'm hitting close to home. When I'm making arguments that destroy whatever self-serving nonsense they are spewing forth, they start in with this sort of crap.

 

[Road Runner]

What evidence? That you that don’t like their political views? That believe what others say about sans actual evidence? If you have evidence, then why won’t you contact a Sr Mod?

What happens when you “expose” someone who is not a pedo because you feel convinced he is, maybe for no more reason that he is generally un likable?

On this messageboard, we have no way of really knowing, but we can review the “evidence” and if appropriate contact authorities. That has been done. What you are suggesting is we allow vigilante lynch mobs to determine who to target.

Is that a good idea? What if youwere on the receiving end?




And in that situation, you had very clear solid evidence. If you had that, and brought it to the Sr Mods, they would let you go after him.

Do you have anything as strong for anyone here?




End of story, your mind is made up.

If somebody were to call me a pedo why would I care? I haven't posted anything to even make that accusation even remotely true. If somebody gets called a pedo it should be their own fault for making themselves out to be like one and like I said before,.. I'm not personally getting involved with police.

 

[BlueGin]

You need to separate the terms that are not illegal from those that are illegal however.

There is no law against being racist, white supremacist, homophobic, Nazi, KKK, terrorist, or Taliban, at least so long as these do not demonstrate their beliefs by breaking the law. Is it classy to accuse people of these things when they are not? Of course not. It demonstrates a woeful lack of character in some cases. But on a board where those kinds of insults are a blood sport, neither are they defamatory.

Nor is it illegal to believe grooming or pedophilia are okay, however reprehensible, even evil, such belief is. It is the acting out of those beliefs that is illegal and a groomer or pedophile is one who is acting out. To accuse somebody of being a groomer or pedophile without specific proof they are acting out those horrendously evil and illegal activities is defamatory and should not be allowed on a public forum. It is defamatory until they are tried and convicted in a court of law for those offenses.

We can certainly tell such people what we think about their support for such behavior though.

No. That’s is just splitting hairs. They want to have one segment of the participants of the discussion to be able to lob accusations at posters ( homophobes,bigots,transphobes,Taliban,insurrectionist etc ),but not the other segment. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm not angry about the ban on the word "groomer," but I can understand why others would be angry.

I think there might be less anger about this if the word being banned were not used almost exclusively by supporters of one of the major political parties when addressing a supporter of the other, and if it were not the only word banned.

Somone suggested banning the word "racist" and they make a good point. We hate racists so calling someone a racist is inflamatory. Since it is used most by members of the party who are most at risk for groomer shaming, that was offered as a way to be fair.

Unfortunately, the party that most often calls people "racist" is also at risk for racist shaming. The two sides have much different definitions of that word. When someone I am debating supports a racist policy, I want to be able to say so.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Here's a third cent, though. This thread seems to be sucking the life out of other threads.

This thread may be sucking the life out of others to you, but it is about how the mods are using power to create a place more attractive to those who want to sexualize kids and more hostile to those who wish to protect children. Some here HAVE been sexually abused or have family that has been abused, so we have a little more skin in the game as it were.

Children are now just pawns in the cultural war the globalist left is fighting. Some of us seek to protect them, instead.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bottom line. You want to play the schematics of don't recognize a pedo or a pedo enabler? That's on you but it's easily recognized

Make your silly rules.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dogmaphobe, it's exactly the same reason Democrats want to get rid of Trump. They're terrified of him. I would consider it an honor.

Coyote considers me to be some sort of ringleader or something and says I have groupies or followers or whatever.

In reality I am just an old man offering my views and my views REALLY threaten them because I say the sorts of things most people are too intimidated to say.

The Power ALWAYS hates those who speak truth to power.