adr wrote:why is feb 2 a date that stands out to me
letia has her doctor thing today
but i feel like there's something else significant about this day
groundhog day?
whatever a groundhog is
adr wrote:why is feb 2 a date that stands out to me
letia has her doctor thing today
but i feel like there's something else significant about this day
Crazedwraith wrote:adr wrote:why is feb 2 a date that stands out to me
letia has her doctor thing today
but i feel like there's something else significant about this day
groundhog day?
whatever a groundhog is
sometimes i wish i could still see the hos (not really)adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?
Who got banned?adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?
i'd wager the pedobear squadAaron wrote:Who got banned?adr wrote:seriously though, what rules did those guys break?
from https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2#p3634552The Wookiee wrote:Okay, just going down the list of sick fucks and otherwise...
Cesario: You are a sick scumbag. Perm-ban.
Comrade Claus: You were already on thin ice and you're a generally useless dumbfuck. You are also a sick scumbag. Perm-ban.
S.L.Acker: Maybe you should've hung out in the background a while longer before you tried to tangle with the big boys. Perm-ban.
The Wookiee wrote:I hadn't logged on yet.Flagg wrote:WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE? You call a mod a cunt and it's permban time instantly, but you can peddle child molestation apologistic filth and you're allowed to continue? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
i think kiddy fiddlers are an exception to the ruleadr wrote:yeah but what the hell ever happened to "its not what positions you take but how well you argue it?"
if they can be banned for being "sick scumbags" who's next
the destruction of civil liberties on star destroyer.net is frightening
this precedent will have a chilling effect on future ethical discussions
seems to be par per courseDarth Fanboy wrote:You notice how Terralthra, for being a chickenshit and not coming out with an answer to a couple of questions, appears to have escaped punishment entirely?
Oxymoron wrote:Hypothetically, wouldn't it be perceived as vendetopathy ?
Oxymoron's Sig wrote:No.
Man I miss all the fun ... damn time zones ....Mr.Coffee wrote:Wow, DF, we actually manage to argue three fuckwits into getting themselves banned. Cue Queen's "We Are The Champions"...
That's misplacing the burden of proof. The claim "this is morally permissible" ought to be the default assumption!Darth Fanboy wrote:The idea you can argue for anything so long as you argue well certainly has exceptions for topics that are indefensible.
What I would have said is: "It doesn't matter whether it is pedophilia or not. Being sexually attracted to someone is not evil." and simply left it at that.No, you're the one claiming that it's somehow not pedophilia because it's a drawing of a child and not a picture of an actual child, guy.
slacker's response to this is ok; the act is still what's bad, not the thought, and there it is not necessarily true that the thoughts lead to the act; if it was, it would be more than a small minority.By your own fucking words, the small minority of them WILL harm someone.
slacker's response was weak, he said "So your entire rambling has been based on how you feel and not any facts or documented research. Thank you very much for wasting all of our time."Exact same or not it's the product of a diseased fucking mind that needs to be responsibly treated and addressed by professionals, not apologized for because "drawings aren't people."
That's victory! Since the default position is something is not immoral, they burden of proof was on you guys. By responding with this, it means they won.There is literally nothing more I can and will say to you either.