Step-by-step guide to squirting as '69% of women experience it' during orgasm

submitted by [deleted] from (dailystar.co.uk)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A better solution is to promote better content through community participation in the new tab.

A more immediate solution is for users to block the propagandists in thier own options.

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

Yes, I can block peoples accounts until I exist in an echo chamber of my own creation. But as an Admin, you will need to have some standards for the community. Or you can just let that frog boil.

Please consider the following. Forums are public spaces, and the definition of Porn, is something unfit for public consumption.

For me on the other hand, posting a promo code for lowered mining fees has gotten my posts deleted because of the mere potential that I might profit literal pennies. And likewise, I can link to an article, where the author posts a promo code, and gets hundreds of dollars because, it will be viewed as a legitimate website, and not self promoting. Of course, unless I own that website, which you have no way of knowing about.

Yet, here is a post that you claim to be morally apposed to on your website? On a topic you believe will destroy society? And it isn't even a debate format, but an outgoing link to a for profit website pushing this agenda.

[A]? Do you have a set moral limit?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't consider it a matter of morality at all. It is a matter of principle to allow content you disagree with to the greatest extent possible, with as much consistency as possible when the foundation of the website is free speech. My role here is simply to take some of the load off of the people who run this website. My participation is in appreciation of free speech. So it is my intent to live up to that principle when deciding what I will remove.

Furthermore I think the proper way to treat propaganda is to debate it, not censor it. That is the way to keep it from destroying society.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

And if this were a matter of creative writing, that would be fine. But things that sound good when read, are irrelevant.

https://wikidiff.com/principle/morality

How does one fight a propaganda war when language/morality has been subverted?

What does an admin do if not control?

What's the difference between a language and a program language?

I asked you if you had a moral limit. And I received no answer.

I continue to ask if we are boiling a frog here. You refuse to acknowledge the concept.

I subvert the very concept of debate. You think it is debatable.

You post opinion from an Admin account, while claiming neutrality.

I'm sorry. All I see is traction, and tools that can be used against you.

Propaganda is never in good faith. You can not debate bad faith. Especially not in a digital format.

All tools can be used against their creators.

Now do your best to not fall on your own sword.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But things that sound good when read, are irrelevant.

If you are of the opinion that no matter how good the opposing point is that it doesn't matter, then you are beyond reasoning. No matter how right I am you will simply refuse to accept it. You essentially just admitted to being a bad faith debater. Yet here I am responding. If you keep reading you will learn why, and hopefully be able to see it from two perspectives: that of the bad faith debater and (with some imagination) how it would look if you apply it to someone you see as a bad faith debater.

How does one fight a propaganda war when language/morality has been subverted?

Big question that is far beyond the scope of this conversation and would only derail it. Short answer is:little by little.

What does an admin do if not control?

I clean up spam. I am not interested in defining an admin's role in some broad manner. It would be over reaching and absurd. A better exercise would be to define the meaning of life. I have no intention, and think it incredibly stupid, to act according to the definition of a word.

What's the difference between a language and a program language?

That sounds like a question a snake oil salesman would ask. It's a convoluted question with likely a carefully prepared, equally convoluted answer intended to confuse people while injecting a logical fallacy. The difference is obviously that the former refers to human communication while the latter refers to a program that assembles binary code from text inputs, aiding in the creation of software.

I asked you if you had a moral limit. And I received no answer.

For several reasons. It is an ill-defined question. What is a moral limit? It is also irrelevant as I don't consider my part to be of moral consequence. If anything it is censorship that is immoral. It is also inherently context dependent.

I continue to ask if we are boiling a frog here. You refuse to acknowledge the concept.

No. Not if you are allowing open debate.

subvert the very concept of debate. You think it is debatable.

That your arguments are in bad faith does not mean that the best course of action is to simply censor you. You will never admit to being wrong but this debate is public and others will see that you are wrong. Others who may have genuinely believed the bad faith arguments you made but did get swayed by the counter arguments despite not actively participating. There is always benefit in open public debate, so long as you consider getting closer to the truth a benefit.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Now go back and reread all of my statements, and assume that they were made in good faith. Then read them again, and assume they are meant as objective statements and not subjective statements. Then reread them again and assume bad faith. Then again, and assume subjectivity. Then four more times, combining those concepts into set orders, bad faith & subjectivity and so on. Then revisit the first Quote you posted here, and see it in reference to the link provided, and how that you have failed to address that linked to statement, and again have written something that reads well, but is not relevant. Then understand that you have misconstrued every single thing I have said to you here... And then go back and try and figure out which words I define differently than you, and how that will effect discourse in the future. And then, with your new found spiritual awareness... go back and remove the fucking dildo spam you dumb ass! "I clean up spam." OK? As for moral limits, I would have accepted the answer of "yes".

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

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

You post opinion from an Admin account, while claiming neutrality.

There is nothing neutral about my opinions. No opinions are neutral.

I'm sorry. All I see is traction, and tools that can be used against you.

Not sure what you mean here.

Propaganda is never in good faith. You can not debate bad faith. Especially not in a digital format

You can, especially in a digital format where you can reach countless people and leave the conversation up for a long time. The point is the audience, not the propagandist.

All tools can be used against their creators.

OK