Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Outstanding argument.Who else agrees with me that there is something very fucked up about the fact that those who are willfully and knowingly complicit in the sexual grooming and abuse of children are allowed to openly defend and advocate for such, but any of us who dare to call them out on it risk being sanctioned and censored for it?
I'm generally not in favor of censorship, but if we're not to be allowed to call out supporters of child abuse for what they clearly are, then perhaps fairness demands that it also not be allowed to defend or advocate for such abuse, don't you think?
So, you are saying that all royals in your country are paedos?All groomers are paedos.
No one here has defended pedophilia. If you think so, make a case to moderation.Outstanding argument.
You would think this clarification wouldn't be needed, but that just shows you how fucked up things are getting to.
I wholeheartedly agree that if one can be censored for calling someone out for defending pedophilia, then you should also be censored for defending pedophila in the first place.
In one comment from a post from a few years ago, a poster openly stated that British child gang rape victims were indulging in consensual sex and the children were just being tapped (crude reference for cheap and easy sex) by the assailants.And yet is is perfectly fine for perverted filth to openly defend and support sexual grooming of children.
The violation of forum rule sonly comes into play when someone else observes that that is what is happening.
What is wrong with this picture?
Why should one who openly defends and advocates the sexual grooming, exploitation, or other abuse of children be protected by this forum's rules from being called out on it?
Supporting pedos as leaders is defending pedophilia I believe.......No one here has defended pedophilia. If you think so, make a case to moderation.
as is ridiculing people's posts for opposing the gang rape of children.Supporting pedos as leaders is defending pedophilia I believe.......
Supporting pedos as leaders is defending pedophilia I believe.......
You mean you can molest children, and as long as our corrupt DOJ doesn't charge you, you aren't really a pedo here?
Show me charges and convictions for any current elected officials.
Heavens, no.You mean you can molest children,
My fault, I wasn't clear... I was making the remark to an earlier mod statement that if the word "grooming"No one here has defended pedophilia. If you think so, make a case to moderation.
This forum applies two different standards. They require the most direct statements imaginable before admitting that somebody supports pedophilia, but if a person even HINTS that that there is pedophilia involved , they get slapped down.My fault, I wasn't clear... I was making the remark to an earlier mod statement that if the word "grooming"
refers to pedophilia - it will be deleted and the member possibly infracted.
If my understanding is incorrect, than that mod need to clarify what he said.
I can't imagine a person can talk about grooming children in a sexual context, or referring to that being done - and state their support of that - and then someone calls them out - the post gets deleted.
I can't imagine something stupid as that would be a rule... so a better explanation is needed.
Im sorry Coyote. I know that you have been accused of this yourself when attempting to discuss the subject.Basically if we think you are using it to imply a member is pedo, we will act on it. I strongly recommend you do NOT call a member a groomer in the context of children or you risk an infraction.
That doesn’t mean you can’t talk about grooming and groomers, just don’t call a member that. If we think you are using Disney for that purpose, you take the same risk.
It’s like porn…we can’t always define it, but we know when we see it.
But you can never produce an example to ba k up your shit. Why is that ?This forum applies two different standards. They require the most direct statements imaginable before admitting that somebody supports pedophilia, but if a person even HINTS that that there is pedophilia involved , they get slapped down.
People can use the language and themes pedophiles use to try to justify their actions all they want, but even pointing out the nature of such language is not allowed.
That is a needed clarification...This forum applies two different standards. They require the most direct statements imaginable before admitting that somebody supports pedophilia, but if a person even HINTS that that there is pedophilia involved , they get slapped down.
People can use the language and themes pedophiles use to try to justify their actions all they want, but even pointing out the nature of such language is not allowed.
This is a great example. I know that Bob is stupid but it shouldnt give him the right to call me or others a paedo. He makes this acusation every week.
Sometimes I ask him for proof of this but he can never back it up.
It is wrong and should be dealt with.
You have applied yourself in absolutely obsessive ways to defending Pakistani men grooming and raping British children. You celebrate triumphantly when people opposing it are jailed. You call people names if they are outraged by it or point out the inherent nature of Pakistanis selecting British children almost exclusively. You do everything in your power to prop up a status quo of abuse such as exists in the U.K. where the very opposition to these practices is nigh on impossible.But you can never produce an example to ba k up your shit. Why is that ?
The rule specifically says no calling members pedophiles, when the subject is brought up most people associate grooming with pedophilia. Based on the fact that most people are simple minded fools who don't see or understand nuance gives the perception that accusing someone of supporting grooming can be seen as ostensibly the same thing hence a violation.There is no rule about the word "grooming" that I am aware of.
Pedophilia and grooming is not the same thing, obviously.
I read willhafetowait's response... and am perplexed. He is seeming to want to create a new sudo rule where you can't call someone out for supporting sexual grooming.
That would be asinine.
So, like I said... that needs to be clarified. I don't think that is what he meant, but that is how the post reads.
