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.
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.