I don't like that guy (I suspect he's also shadow323), but I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't begging for child porn, he was challenging the guy to cross a line he suspected the guy wasn't actually willing to cross. Nor is trying to clear his name after you accused him of being a pedo a "mental breakdown."
I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't begging for child porn, he was challenging the guy to cross a line he suspected the guy wasn't actually willing to cross.
That "line" being to post child porn. What's it called when you repeatedly request something?
Nor is trying to clear his name after you accused him of being a pedo a "mental breakdown."
You make it sound like he wanted to watch childporn
I've never said he wanted to watch child porn. Where did you see that? I said he begged for child porn. Which he plainly did. You don't even deny it. I don't know about Ireland, but in the US, and Canada, trying to convince others to commit crimes is illegal. And in this case, I'm not talking about slap-on-the-wrist illegal, I'm talking "spend two decades in prison because that's a class B felony" illegal.
You accused him of "begging for childporn repeatedly."
Which is a factual statement linking to the actual thread where one can plainly see the felony taking place. Now if you want to read other stuff into that, that's on you. I don't see why I need to go out of my way to preserve a felon's name. Especially a child porn solicitor's.
I've never said he wanted to watch child porn. Where did you see that? I said he begged for child porn.
Which is a factual statement linking to the actual thread where one can plainly see the felony taking place. Now if you want to read other stuff into that, that's on you.
Oh come on. You knew full well what you were implying. No one's that autistic.
I don't know how I can imply anything when I literally tell you what I mean, link you to the conversations, then have all but one (Crensch) agree my description is perfectly accurate. The only difference is some people like to throw in an implicit "but" and tell me it was all "provocation", as if that's somehow less illegal/disgusting.
I know it's surprising, but sometimes people tell you exactly what they mean and leave no room for ambiguity. If I wanted to call TOO a pedophile, I'd call him a pedophile. It's not like he can do anything about it anyway.
Your original post claimed he was "begging for childporn." Begging is a verb which suggests desperation and need on the beggar's part, whereas in fact he exhibited neither desperation nor need, he was issuing a challenge to the guy to put his keyboard where his mouth was. That is not begging.
You then claimed that he "had a mental breakdown" when you called him on it. I see no evidence whatsoever of a mental breakdown. He was clearly just defending himself.
So no, I did not "independently conclude the same thing."
After the third or fourth time he gets shut down, I would have imagined most people would start to call it "begging". This wasn't a single, isolated (but still illegal) request. It was several. To several different users. Over the course of days.
. I see no evidence whatsoever of a mental breakdown. He was clearly just defending himself.
Interesting take.
So no, I did not "independently conclude the same thing."
Well we agree he solicited child pornography, if nothing else. Looks like this all disagreement boils down to semantics. I would imagine committing felonies would have stood on its own, but apparently semantic issues derail from the real point.
After the third or fourth time he gets shut down, I would have imagined most people would start to call it "begging". This wasn't a single, isolated (but still illegal) request. It was several. To several different users. Over the course of days.
Begging isn't defined by how many times you ask something, it's defined by desperate need. For example: If a cop points his gun at you and repeatedly orders you to get on the ground, it would not be accurate to describe this as "begging." Or if a duelist issued three challenges to an opponent only to be ignored, that could not reasonably be described as "begging."
Well we agree he solicited child pornography
No. I'm pretty sure he posted that knowing the guy wouldn't post childporn, so I don't think it could be described as solicitation. I agree that's a fine distinction though.
I would imagine committing felonies would have stood on its own, but apparently semantic issues derail from the real point.
Everyone commits felonies. The fact that doing something is against the law in one country or another doesn't make it immoral or deserving of censure.
How would you suggest I rephrase this so people understand me better?
Well, first you'd need to explain why you want to spread this so badly.
that could not reasonably be described as "begging."
We'll have to agree to disagree, since this isn't a factual issue, but rather one of perspective. Thanks for sharing yours.
No. I'm pretty sure he posted that knowing the guy wouldn't post childporn, so I don't think it could be described as solicitation.
It can. Also, you're wrong, since he's explicitly stated his intent. You need to be consistent with your arguments. You're not issuing a serious challenge if you don't actually intend anyone to follow through with it. Nobody disagrees he's challenging someone to post child porn. His intent was specifically for it to happen. That it didn't is imaterial.
Everyone commits felonies. The fact that doing something is against the law in one country or another doesn't make it immoral or deserving of censure.
Yes it does. I don't think you understand: This is America. We don't have your stupid "hate speech" laws protecting everyone and everything that isn't white. Our restrictions on speech are probably the most reasonable on the planet. Unless you're about to argue that child porn solicitation isn't absolutely disgusting and shouldn't be an indictable offense, I suggest we stop this line of argument.
In fact, let's stop it regardless. Child porn solicitation is illegal for good reason. The only context it should ever be legal is as a joke. I dare you to disagree.
Well, first you'd need to explain why you want to spread this so badly.
Because I don't think child porn soliciting felons should get to chide others for posting legal content. Much less get them banned. Even less so keep their platform after using it to censor others for doing nothing wrong.
view the rest of the comments →
Simonsaysgoat ago
Reddit is leftist incels. Voat is right wing chads
Dortex ago
And child porn solicitors.
Broc_Lia ago
Not since pizzagate lol
Dortex ago
This copypasta begs to differ:
Broc_Lia ago
I don't like that guy (I suspect he's also shadow323), but I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't begging for child porn, he was challenging the guy to cross a line he suspected the guy wasn't actually willing to cross. Nor is trying to clear his name after you accused him of being a pedo a "mental breakdown."
Dortex ago
That "line" being to post child porn. What's it called when you repeatedly request something?
Where did I accuse him of being a pedo?
Broc_Lia ago
You make it sound like he wanted to watch childporn, instead it's pretty clear he was challenging the other guy to live up to his words.
You accused him of "begging for childporn repeatedly."
Dortex ago
I've never said he wanted to watch child porn. Where did you see that? I said he begged for child porn. Which he plainly did. You don't even deny it. I don't know about Ireland, but in the US, and Canada, trying to convince others to commit crimes is illegal. And in this case, I'm not talking about slap-on-the-wrist illegal, I'm talking "spend two decades in prison because that's a class B felony" illegal.
Which is a factual statement linking to the actual thread where one can plainly see the felony taking place. Now if you want to read other stuff into that, that's on you. I don't see why I need to go out of my way to preserve a felon's name. Especially a child porn solicitor's.
Broc_Lia ago
Oh come on. You knew full well what you were implying. No one's that autistic.
Dortex ago
I don't know how I can imply anything when I literally tell you what I mean, link you to the conversations, then have all but one (Crensch) agree my description is perfectly accurate. The only difference is some people like to throw in an implicit "but" and tell me it was all "provocation", as if that's somehow less illegal/disgusting.
I know it's surprising, but sometimes people tell you exactly what they mean and leave no room for ambiguity. If I wanted to call TOO a pedophile, I'd call him a pedophile. It's not like he can do anything about it anyway.
Broc_Lia ago
At the very best you mischaractarised what happened. If you don't agree then ok, but that's my take on it having seen the links.
Dortex ago
I'm trying to understand how it is you feel I mis-characterized the exchange. From my perspective, I:
1) told you what happened, then you
2)looked at the links and
3) independently concluded the same thing. Only after that, you
4) threw in additional objections to things I never said.
Somewhere between 3 and 4 we're having an issue, and it may be happening with other people who aren't direct enough to actually tell me, unlike you.
Broc_Lia ago
Your original post claimed he was "begging for childporn." Begging is a verb which suggests desperation and need on the beggar's part, whereas in fact he exhibited neither desperation nor need, he was issuing a challenge to the guy to put his keyboard where his mouth was. That is not begging.
You then claimed that he "had a mental breakdown" when you called him on it. I see no evidence whatsoever of a mental breakdown. He was clearly just defending himself.
So no, I did not "independently conclude the same thing."
Dortex ago
After the third or fourth time he gets shut down, I would have imagined most people would start to call it "begging". This wasn't a single, isolated (but still illegal) request. It was several. To several different users. Over the course of days.
Interesting take.
Well we agree he solicited child pornography, if nothing else. Looks like this all disagreement boils down to semantics. I would imagine committing felonies would have stood on its own, but apparently semantic issues derail from the real point.
Broc_Lia ago
Begging isn't defined by how many times you ask something, it's defined by desperate need. For example: If a cop points his gun at you and repeatedly orders you to get on the ground, it would not be accurate to describe this as "begging." Or if a duelist issued three challenges to an opponent only to be ignored, that could not reasonably be described as "begging."
No. I'm pretty sure he posted that knowing the guy wouldn't post childporn, so I don't think it could be described as solicitation. I agree that's a fine distinction though.
Everyone commits felonies. The fact that doing something is against the law in one country or another doesn't make it immoral or deserving of censure.
Well, first you'd need to explain why you want to spread this so badly.
Dortex ago
We'll have to agree to disagree, since this isn't a factual issue, but rather one of perspective. Thanks for sharing yours.
It can. Also, you're wrong, since he's explicitly stated his intent. You need to be consistent with your arguments. You're not issuing a serious challenge if you don't actually intend anyone to follow through with it. Nobody disagrees he's challenging someone to post child porn. His intent was specifically for it to happen. That it didn't is imaterial.
Yes it does. I don't think you understand: This is America. We don't have your stupid "hate speech" laws protecting everyone and everything that isn't white. Our restrictions on speech are probably the most reasonable on the planet. Unless you're about to argue that child porn solicitation isn't absolutely disgusting and shouldn't be an indictable offense, I suggest we stop this line of argument.
In fact, let's stop it regardless. Child porn solicitation is illegal for good reason. The only context it should ever be legal is as a joke. I dare you to disagree.
Because I don't think child porn soliciting felons should get to chide others for posting legal content. Much less get them banned. Even less so keep their platform after using it to censor others for doing nothing wrong.
theoldones ago
bullshit.
the high-lord dortex gives us this humble permission. oh how wonderful. thanks for giving us permission to think you're peddling bullshit, you cunt
Maggotbait88 ago
It looks to me like he said "Post a picture of a naked child"
Pretty clear cut to me
theoldones ago
calling a fair defense a mental breakdown, is like assaulting someone randomly then calling them the crazed one, when they fight back
theoldones ago
all of these are literally the laced links that eventually say you're a dishonest snake
Maggotbait88 ago
I read them. You said "post a naked child" what the fuck dude
theoldones ago
oh hi dortex's-alt
Maggotbait88 ago
Oh look it's the cp solicitor
theoldones ago
oh look it's dortex's alt
Maggotbait88 ago
Calling me a alt doesn't undo you asking for naked children pictures
theoldones ago
oh right, i guess the proof of you being separate is your preferred age of childfucking is 7 years apart
https://archive.fo/T4265
https://web.archive.org/web/20190611051457/https://voat.co/v/whatever/3270549/
Maggotbait88 ago
And I'm still not the one asking for cp. Geez dude calm down maybe?
theoldones ago
wanna explain this NSFL and horrifying copypasta you wrote?
https://archive.fo/IjUPB
Maggotbait88 ago
it amused me. I see how you constantly deflect from your "Post a naked child"
Whats up with that?
Diggernicks ago
Can you two fags take your public circle jerk someplace private?