you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

Wow, why did my sub just get banned? You're supposed to be all about free speech, so how about being open about the exact rule that creating a sub titled "Pedophilia: it means child LOVE" violates? How is anyone supposed to discuss pedophilia and the right of children to have sex if no one can ever talk about it, even on websites that purport to be all about freedom of speech?

/s/Pedophilia/

[–]magnora7[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

It's obvious we banned it because you're promoting sex with children. Pretty easy to figure out.

You weren't "talking about it" you were actively promoting it as an unquestionably good thing. We don't want or need that on saidit.

[–]d3rr 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Maybe we should just ban the sole post that was sexualizing minors and leave the sub open? Not that anyone wants to police the sub for the next post that comes from this user.

The sidebar content is another relevant concern tho.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

No dude the guy who created it showed his intent. Unless you want to leave a space to let someone else come along and promote the sexualization of minors in a month... but what's the point in that? Makes more sense to nip it in the bud to me, rather than create all these possible points that we'll have to continually police when we know how they're going to go anyway because it's in the sub mission statement. That's how I see it. I see absolutely no benefit to leaving it open, and a whole bunch of huge pitfalls. So it just makes sense to close it. Nothing good can come of this place.

[–]d3rr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah that's totally fair. It just seems like maybe a future pattern to be aware of, where one toxic user can run a topic/sub name for everyone else for forever, since now the sub is banned. With this sub in particular, I can't think of a positive use for it (pedogate exists), but maybe we being weary of users sabotaging whole topics is good.

Maybe I'm full of it and it's a false dillema since someone with different intents can come make pedophilia2.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

where one toxic user can run a topic/sub name for everyone else for forever, since now the sub is banned.

That's a fair point. And were it a more established sub with a wider variety of users, like CringeAnarchy, then you're absolutely 100% right. But given this particular user, the fact he created the zoophile sub and posted about "loving horse cum" or some nasty shit today, and then immediately created this pedophile sub, with an openly pro-pedo first post in it... the guy is clearly trying to fuck with saidit, and this sub is an extension of that. That's how I see this situation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you're only allowed to be anti-pedophilia when you make a sub about pedophilia? How is that respecting free speech?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I think a neutral or anti-pedopholia sub would be fine here, but sexualizing minors is another story. This is not an absolute free speech site.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Clearly, because "sexualizing minors" is something you're accusing me of doing apparently which is funny since how is the topic of child sexuality not ever "sexualizing children"? How can someone have a discussion about whether or not children should be allowed to have sex (like many of them do in reality, like I did when I was a kid, but everyone hides it) when by the mere discussion of that topic, all those involved are "sexualizing minors" which apparently is something that is against SaidIt's rules somehow even though it's literally not one of the rules? This is the exact text of my sub:

Description:

For the discussion of topics related to pedophilia and child sexuality, not a place to discuss the ethics of pedophilia as a whole. Examples include discussing current laws and rights (or lack thereof) that children have to be sexual beings, issues that effect pedophiles, and issues that effect children who are or would be sexual if given the chance.

Rules:

  1. Don't dox yourself. Exercise caution with any information you post about yourself. The term "pedophile" is largely equated with "rapist" by many media outlets rather than the original meaning of the term, so put on some armor. This is the sad reality we face and changing public opinion about kids having sex is one of the main reasons this sub exists.

  2. Be very cautious when it comes to discussing or admitting any real events in your life which may be illegal in your country. If discussing any past events, keep in mind how the statute of limitations works if it exists in your country.

  3. No porn is allowed due to both SaidIt's rules as well as the laws in many countries.

  4. Play nice! Name-calling, mud-slinging, and other aggressive attacks accomplish nothing when trying to have a progressive discussion that should be helping yourself as well as other readers, so doing that is against the rules.

Okay, so what is it exactly in there that you object to? That the sub's rules is against allowing discussion of the ethics of pedophilia as a whole? Lots of subs on here have rules that tries to focus the sub onto specific rules. I can make a sub titled "Banana_Advocacy" where one of the rules is to not get into the discussion about whether or not bananas are good or bad, or if someone likes bananas or not, but instead keeping the topic about the enjoyment of bananas. So why would in the case of my sub focusing the topic be a no-no?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is objectionable, along with parts of the post you made.

and issues that effect children who are or would be sexual if given the chance

This is sexualizing minors.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So advocating for children having sex is against SaidIt's rules? Which rule # is that? Really curious to find out your answer. You do know that in many countries, children as young as 12/13/14 can have sex legally with adults, right? But all children who have sex with other children are by definition pedophiles, too.

What kind of website is this? I thought it was all about the freedom of speech, yet you're saying you're not even allowed to talk in favor of certain things? Which rule is that? How in the hell is someone supposed to make points about why there's nothing wrong with children having sex if you're not allowed to even talk about children having sex?

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If you don't like the rules of saidit, you're free to leave.

[–]fucksaidit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I signed up for your shitty site just now after reading this subthread just to say that your position on this subject is laughably retarded and pathetic. And no, for the record, I'm not a pedo.

But not allowing people to express mere viewpoints just because you don't approve of them makes you just as bad as reddit or any other conglomeration of SJWs. You should feel absolutely ashamed of yourself for trying to promote this site as a reddit alternative when you're pulling the exact same shit as them (if not worse shit, as you're allowed to express pro-pedo viewpoints on reddit as long as you don't say something like "This 8 year old is hot.").

I truly pity your lack of intelligence, circumspection, and philosophical depth. I genuinely believe that you probably want to create a better alternate to reddit, but you are clearly incapable of it. It's too bad you are too blinded by your emotional biases to follow through on any sort of principled behavior. Weak, unscrupulous men like you are the cancer that is destroying the West.

What a joke you and this site are. Do not promote this site ever again as a venue for free thought, expression, opinion, or speech unless you want to be guilty of false advertisement and earn the karma that liars have coming to them.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If saidit makes you this angry, then why are you here writing paragraphs? Goodbye.

[–]fucksaidit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm just putting the issue on record so I can be sure to point out your site's lack of freedom of speech and opinion for any who might consider using it in the future, so I can steer people away from it. Goodbye indeed and enjoy your dead circlejerk, faggot.

PS: All of your responses to the arguments in this subthread have been far lower on the pyramid of debate than the posts you're responding to, meaning that by your own logic you should be banned. But of course the rules don't apply to you, do they?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Calling a sub "pedophilia" does not violate any of the rules. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with children having sex, and you're saying that opinion is not allowed to be on SaidIt. The Greek term literally means "child love". Children who have sex with other children are pedophiles, it's extremely common. If you're suggesting that the only sub title you will allow about pedophilia must be titled "anti-pedophilia" then of course you're not at all about the freedom of speech. How the hell are we supposed to discuss pedophilia and the right of children to have sex in a neutral way when you shut down that discourse even on a pro-free-speech website? You want me to title it "Child_Sex" instead? "ChildSexualityAdvocacy"? What the hell am I supposed to call it that would be OK by your standards? Nothing, because you're banning anyone who thinks kids should be allowed to be the sexual beings that they are and that I myself was when I was young?

I'll also throw in here that "zoophilia" is illegal in various forms in various states and countries too, yet I don't see you banning that sub which you can easily claim is also "advocating" for zoophilia.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Why is this something you want so desperately to talk about? Are you not an adult yourself? Why the fixation? Why create a whole sub about it instead of just a thread? Why also create the sub zoophilia, which is about having sex with animals? You want both?

You seem here to cause trouble, rather than have any real discussions about anything. The ruling is final, we're not going to have a pro-pedophilia club, even by your absolutely strange definition of pedophilia

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why is this something you want so desperately to talk about? Are you not an adult yourself? Why the fixation? Why create a whole sub about it instead of just a thread?

The line of questioning is beyond mattering because literally anyone is allowed to create a sub here about any topic they're interested in, or so I thought. Do you treat everyone with this line of questioning about giving the reasons for them making their subs? So, what I'm about to say doesn't matter because subs need no justification to exist besides someone being interested in them, but here goes: I am very interested in the right of children to have sex with others just as I'm interested in the right of non-human species to have sex because that's the moral position if you care about others. Anti-sexuality is evil and hurtful, it's standing against love and bonding. Sex is normally a good pro-social loving bonding activity that everyone should have the right to share. Someone pleasuring themselves or someone else is good as long as everyone involved is happy and safe. I've been having sex since I was five years old, and it was wonderful, yet prudish adults wanted to punish and stop me from sharing those wonderful things with many many others. That was abusive and wrong of them to stop someone from sharing wonderful loving fun things together. Finally, the reason why it's so important is because many countries in the world today have made horrible laws against all kinds of sexuality including homosexuality, zoosexuality, pedosexuality, or even banning all sexuality, and that only causes all sorts of problems, namely sex trafficking, rape, and murder (due to it being illegal and thus being risky). Just like drugs should be legalized, sex should be legalized too.

And that's just for starters.

Why also create the sub zoophilia, which is about having sex with animals? You want both?

The zoophilia sub already exists, and what do you mean "You want both?"? It doesn't matter what I want, but obviously the creator of that sub and those who have posted on it so far wanted it.

You seem here to cause trouble, rather than have any real discussions about anything. The ruling is final, we're not going to have a pro-pedophilia club, even by your absolutely strange definition of pedophilia

So Rule #4:

Don't be unliked by a moderator, because then they can accuse you of wanting to cause trouble and ban your sub.

?

Again, name one rule that violates anything that I've done in creating a sub about child sex advocacy, because you have no grounds for accusing me of "wanting to start trouble" nor is that against the rules anyway and you're just making accusations about my motivations that are completely untrue.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

We made our decision, you know the rules now. It's final. You are more than free to leave if you disagree with how saidit is run.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

SaidIt is all for free speech as long as you never suggest that children should have the right to have sex like they already do have in many countries at various ages, then it's not. Please update your rules, then, so you don't waste people's time.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"No sexualization of children" has been added as a part of rule 2. I'm surprised it even needed to be said at all as it seems pretty implicitly obvious, but here we are.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So discussing children being allowed to have sex or child sex laws etc is all "sexualizing children", got it, okay, yeah just keep making that set of rules bigger and bigger once you think of more topics you don't like. Good job shutting down discourse of super important issues that cause super important problems like child sex trafficking all because children having sex is illegal in many places. Way to stand up for the children.

Bye.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I am standing up for children, that's why I did it. Anti-pedo discussion is allowed, but that's not what you were doing. Bye.