we have pedophiles enemies who regularly try to frame us as pedophiles, while painting themselves as pedohunters, even though we've busted them being pedophiles in the past
this includes, lies, spam, outright admitted "slander". these are evil and unethical tactics
@thelma for some reason decided weird things about pedophiles, and now has begun using these same tactics
thelma, is it a fair request to ask you to stop being a fucking cunt? if you roam with pedos, you'll get labelled as one yourself somehow.
thelma ago
if you get labelled as one, the site will probably destroy you
hilarious .. threatening to term me as a pedo to get me to stop showing how goofy you people are.
https://files.catbox.moe/7nqgw5.JPG
^^^ site rule - from user agreement
You complain of things posted on Voat ~ but what do the rules say ?
So things posted on voat are not in violation of the rule, yes ?
And I would assume that any you thought "slipped through the cracks", as no system is perfect, you brought to the attention of the proper persons who then reviewed the posts and decided that they were fine.
And not happy with that, begin attacking specific people.
That's not cool. Just saying that even your sub would allow lollicon images to be posted, yes? I guess there are a few of those subs I have banned (they still show LOL) so I do note the posts and ignore them.
Anything posted on voat is presumed to be OK per the user agreement. Just noting that here. And, as I have said, there are other venues to go to that would better suit your goals. Ex. I lobby for the disabled in my state legislature all the time as well in other subjects. I have gotten legislation proposed and passed. <gasp imagine that !>
PatriotLady1 ago
You should be shot on sight. How's that for 1st Amendment?
theoldones ago
can you give an explicit yes or no on whether you are defending pedophiles?
thelma ago
If you want me to say that anyone who looks at an 11 YO with lust, the answer is no. Because many 11 YOs look at other 11 YOs with lust.
So I will simply defend the voat user agreement rule. I would not have joined if I did not.
If you want a more specific response you are going to have to define the term; I would suggest noting the age ranges of the "looker" and age ranges of the "poser of the photo".
I don't know if you consider looking at a 16 YO girl of you are a 18 YO male as IDing the male as a pedo. Many states allow 16 YO to marry.
Its more complicated a subject matter than a quick look-see and jumping to conclusions. Honestly, I have never sat down an hammered out what I think "sexually suggestive" is -- the law really provides little guidance as these are examined on a case by case basis. But the Voat rule is there and I have confidence that it being observed. I am not, and do not pretend to be, a mind reader. I have not found any posts that cause me to have lust relating to pictures posted of persons known to be under the age of 18.
And there are many women that have the appearance of being under 18 when they are well over that age. Photoshop, makeup, etc. I don't jump to conclusions.
I presume you do not approve of youth beauty pageants etc. Do you go and get in the face of their parents calling them and others who attend as pedos ?
And no, I do not condone CP.
I do not condone many things. Trying to limit free speech is another.
If you wish to limit yourself to Voat, that's fine too. Why not propose a new rule to Putt and try and get sigs on a petition. I cannot complain about that and may provide my support. Putt has clearly tried to balance CP stuff with free speech.
theoldones ago
stop avoiding the question, you know what question i'm asking about.
context: a 40 year old fat, ugly, raping sexual predator is jacking it to a picture of a child. do you defend this person and practice?
yes or no.