Twitter Bans QAnon But Discussions on “Attraction Towards Minors” Are Permitted

submitted by scrubking from thegatewaypundit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

The left hates pedophiles. I was banned from /r/Anarchism in large part for saying that the distribution of child pornography (but not filming) should be legal (due to my strong belief in freedom of speech, expression, and information), and have been banned from many other places for trying to discuss this belief and change it. Everyone in the LGBTQ+ community who I have heard talk about pedophilia talks about it in a bad light, and say that pedophiles are not welcome in the LGBTQ+ community. I can't even say why I was banned from /r/Anarchism on /r/Libertarian, because it supposedly violates Reddit's rules to do so. Maybe some fringe people on the left may push for pedophilia, but I can assure you that the mainstream left is heavily against it, and will try to silence you if you come even close to advocating for it.

I cannot take such an argument that the left pushes for pedophilia seriously, when I have gotten so badly censored by the left for an opinion that doesn't even advocate for pedophilia itself, that it made me suicidal.

[–]ekitten 24 insightful - 3 fun24 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

The distribution of child pornography should not be legal what the fuck jesus christ

[–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Do you also believe the distribution of violent video games should be illegal?

If not, why do you believe that one depiction of one harmful act should be legal, but not the depiction of another?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Shut up you utter cretin. Violent video games do not have a victim. The distribution of child porn creates a demand, and there are paedophiles that will meet that demand by abusing children.

[–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some child pornography also does not have a victim, i.e, anything fictional that is drawn or computer rendered, rather than filmed in real life.

Perhaps I should also add, that I do not think paying an abuser for their abuse should be legal. This includes the act of buying meat, as that indirectly causes the murder of animals who did nothing to deserve it.

Would you find reasonable the position that the distribution of anything with a victim involved in its production should be illegal, but that depiction in fiction can be legal?