As long nipples or genitals are NOT shown, we should let them stay. That's for REAL children and teenagers. It's a bit creepy but inoffensive. The racists are technically inoffensive too but you're gonna ban them too? I doubt you will.
If you ban /v/lolicon, I swear by God, Zeus, and anything else mankind ever worshipped, you're not gonna be any different than the reddit administrators. I will delete everything that belongs to me. There's no point in staying here if you also lack the capacity of differentiating reality from fiction like them.
And I will hate you for making me waste such a amount of time in this site. There's nothing I hate more than people who make me waste my time.
And how do you define something is sexualized? By the intent of the creator or how it is used?
Let's create a sub /v/PrettyGirlsInAds ... and post images of pretty girls in advertisements (toy commercials, school supplies, modeling clothing, old JC Penny catalogs Jr Miss underwear section). I mean, its not sexualizing anything, is it? These are just advertisements that feature young girls under the age of 18. Completely legal and innocent. So so so very innocent.
@Puttitout this user poses a serious fucking issue (as many have expressed) on three's wording. you're creating the same grey area for slippery slope that reddit did. you're suggesting we kill the site. some have said.
view the rest of the comments →
7584869? ago
"Sexualized content of minors".
As long nipples or genitals are NOT shown, we should let them stay. That's for REAL children and teenagers. It's a bit creepy but inoffensive. The racists are technically inoffensive too but you're gonna ban them too? I doubt you will.
If you ban /v/lolicon, I swear by God, Zeus, and anything else mankind ever worshipped, you're not gonna be any different than the reddit administrators. I will delete everything that belongs to me. There's no point in staying here if you also lack the capacity of differentiating reality from fiction like them.
And I will hate you for making me waste such a amount of time in this site. There's nothing I hate more than people who make me waste my time.
7585592? ago
And how do you define something is sexualized? By the intent of the creator or how it is used?
Let's create a sub /v/PrettyGirlsInAds ... and post images of pretty girls in advertisements (toy commercials, school supplies, modeling clothing, old JC Penny catalogs Jr Miss underwear section). I mean, its not sexualizing anything, is it? These are just advertisements that feature young girls under the age of 18. Completely legal and innocent. So so so very innocent.
7585743? ago
It seems innocent. Looking at dressed girls was never illegal.
7586471? ago
Do a image search for "lickable". In fact, let me do that for you: http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meh.ro6548.jpg
Nevermind, it's innocent enough.
7599028? ago
wtf?
7588727? ago
@Puttitout this user poses a serious fucking issue (as many have expressed) on three's wording. you're creating the same grey area for slippery slope that reddit did. you're suggesting we kill the site. some have said.
7587268? ago
Creepy, but not illegal (at least not where I live) and not putting voat in danger.
It'd make a good /v/wtf post though
7788032? ago
Legality isn't what got /r/jailbait banned. It was moral crusading.
7791926? ago
The question is what standards voat should set.
7587142? ago
careful now, don't wanna get permabanned because you posted a completely legal advertisement.
7586844? ago
you trying to say they aren't lickable or something? bryers creamsickles are the best.
7586514? ago
Blame the advertisers if you think they are guilty