After an incident where anti-loli false flaggots got an account wrongfully banned for cp, ottman decided to ban loli by making false arguments similar to what 8chan owner jim watkins and gab owner andrew torba made.
Minds userbase is having none of it, and are actively calling ottman out for lying while demanding this decision be reversed.
new edit: ottman is having a meltdown, calling people bots and deleting posts.
edit: the mods need to consider banning the anti-loli spergs on this site for pointless infighting.
Morality isn't objective. It can be pretty close but it will always have holes in it and those holes are why we attempt to avoid moralizing when defining rights and laws.
See, that works completely under utilitarian and moral works, but is really fucked up and easily turned against you later. That's why principles should be based on logical foundation, not moral emotions.
So are all the laws surrounding this. Have you seen the SCOTUS ruling on it from 2002? Or how horribly vague the PROTECT Act of 2003 is, a law designed entirely to say "the Supreme Court decision doesn't count if we just make up a new slightly different law."
Amazing how you managed to make the point better for me. You see how we made great strides to help curb the problem, rather than just ban it and line them up against the wall? That's where I'm sitting.
Its a good thing these are just drawings then and not real children ain't it? You can "consume" this responsibly and never hurt a single living soul. You are operating under the assumption that if they consume this they must also being fucking children, which is a bold unsubstantiated claim.
If you can prove that everyone who has ever consumed this type of content is a guaranteed likely to offend pedophile, I'll happily join your side. But that would require proving all of Japan is raping kids daily.
Its a discussion of censorship, on a place that discusses censorship as its primary topic. Don't just goalpost move when you're wrong man.
I could say the same with people (not you) writing paragraph upon paragraph of "I'M GONNA KILL THEM ALL" but can't answer how this will work logistically and the ramifications of such.
Even you've only said "ban all porn" which works fine for non-porn areas but when you have to define "what is allowable porn." Which is how you get Australia saying small boobs is pedophilia, no matter her actual age among other absurd stipulations and censorship.
For the record, I don't even like it. I defend this out of principle and exhaustion.
Or maybe I value people who have principle because I can trust them to be less likely to stab me the moment they get upset that someone they don't like exists. That's why people like "free speech absolutists" exist. Because SJW or Far Right-Extremist, anything else is full of exceptions that will be exploited and you will always fail their purity spiral.
You are moving the goal post. I could say the literal same thing about alcohol. I wouldn't trust a drinker around children, or machinery, or in general everyday life either because there is a chance something awful might happen.
In fact, I'd bet more children are getting abused, mentally fucked, and actually fucked as a direct result of someone drinking too much than porn jerking coomers molesting them.
This is why those "principles" are so important. You are making an arbitrary distinction that fails literally every test of logic just because "I like this one and don't like this one."
Because you haven't tried to understand it. You just want to hurt coomers and lolicoomers especially without thinking about the bigger picture.
You think porn and loli fit into a neat box you can just throw away and it magically makes society better, instead of spending a second contemplating what the actual definition of either is and how many things would meet that criteria that has nothing to do with either. That's the point of that example, literal real existing adult women are now considered "illegal" because they happen to meet an arbitrary meaningless definition.
I truly don't understand how you cannot see the point being made unless you are being willfully obtuse.
That's why I said less likely, not guaranteed. I don't choose those words easily because I expect cheap gotcha responses like this.
But they aren't having sex with children, they are looking at drawings. You keep saying the two are exactly perfectly equal when they aren't because its the only way to make your point work. One might lead to the other, but drinking might lead to uninhibited actions of destruction too.
You can consume drawings responsibly, just like you can alcohol. You can also spiral downward into doing so irresponsibly and doing awful things. You can even cross a line and do horrifically evil shit.
Again, I didn't choose that comparison easily, I did it because the similarities are quite numerous.
People who can see past their hatred of porn to live in reality where we have seen these moral crusades fail every single time someone has tried it.
But I'm sure you have the key, the perfect answer, to make sure this time it'll go right. Just like a commie would think too.