"I was banned for endorsing/discussing legalisation of child pornography. The wording is slightly different on the main site and the forums but that's the main idea. I do not think this is a fair judgement, mostly because I didn't break any rules.
The rule in question here is the one concerning discussion of illegal activities that constitutes a legal liability. However my discussion, which wasn't even about child pornography itself but about why people make decisions and hold certain views, did not break any laws, so did not create a legal liability. At no point did I endorse or support child pornography, I only looked at it's legalisation in terms of evidence for it's effects. Furthermore in the forum rules (http://forums.furaffinity.net/announcement.php?a=1) there is an expansion on what is permitted in discussion of illegal activities where Dragoneer wrote: "Discussion is permitted within reason provided you do not admit to undertaking any activity considered illegal and/or you do not provide assistance in committing an illegal activity." I did not admit to any illegal activities and I didn't provide any assistance to anyone who wanted to commit any illegal activities, hence the thread was in line with both provisions.
Furthermore I had no reason to believe that the thread was in violation of any rules because it remained open for over two hours and I didn't receive any warnings about it despite three forum moderators reading and posting in it. In fact the very first reply was by a moderator.
It may be possibly that it was considered going too far, despite being within both FA's rules and US laws, but even in that case a permanent ban from both FA and FAF is far too harsh a punishment. Again, we come to the fully within the rules issue but beyond that it is an extreme decision when taking into account my site history. I have never received a single warning or suspension on the main site and have been there for around five years. The same applies to the forum where I have been active for, I think, two or three years and the only warning I have ever received was redacted and I received an apology for it. It seems incredibly heavy handed to permanently ban a user who has a perfect discipline record.
In light of there being no previous action against me, on either the main site or forum, and the thread not breaking the forum rules I ask that the ban is reversed."
Email to Dragoneer:
"Dear Dragoneer
I know I'm not meant to directly contact you about bans and I have emailed the accounts department as said in the ban notice but have not received any sort of reply. Basically I disagree with my ban (on both the main site and forum) and I'm requesting that you unban my account as I did not contravene any of the site rules. The ban was for supposedly promoting the legalisation of and endorsing child pornography. While I did have a thread discussing the subject I at no point endorsed it, in fact in my second post I said that I was against pornography of children because it was harmful. The topic was for the most part about the use of evidence to decide on what the best course of action would be as that was the latest topic on the blog I was using as an example.
Not only does the ban not make sense considering what I actually posted but it doesn't make sense considering how everything was handled. In the thread, which was open for more than two hours, at least three admins read and replied to the thread, participating in the discussion, without locking the thread or telling me that it was inappropriate. That certainly makes it seem like there was originally no problem with the thread topic. Indeed in your own post stating the forum rules you say, concerning illegal activities, "Discussion is permitted within reason provided you do not admit to undertaking any activity considered illegal and/or you do not provide assistance in committing an illegal activity." I did not admit to any illegal activity and I did not provide any assistance in committing any illegal activity so I had not broken forum rules. And if the mere fact of engaging in a discussion that falls within the site rules is worth a ban I must ask why no one else who participated has been banned.
Lastly I think that a permanent ban is far too severe when I was within the site policy as you stated it, received no warning and have never before received any disciplinary action from the site in three years. There was actually one warning, for advertising a site, but at the time there was no rule against advertisements so the warning was removed and I was given an apology from the moderators.
I look forward to a response.
Sincerely Rakuen"
Ban notice on the main site:
"Your account has been permanently banned for the following reason:
You have been permanently banned from from the site for discussion that endorses illegal activity. While we promote and accept all kinds of discussion of different topics we will not tolerate the idea of discussing/promoting the legalization of existing child pornography.
Should you feel that this is a mistake, please send an email to our accounts department"
Ban notice on the forums:
"You have been banned for the following reason: You have been banned from the forums for purusing unacceptable discussion content. There is a boundry that you do not cross, and you have crossed it.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"
My email to accounts department:
"I got the message saying "You have been permanently banned from from the site for discussion that endorses illegal activity. While we promote and accept all kinds of discussion of different topics we will not tolerate the idea of discussing/promoting the legalization of existing child pornography." I certainly do feel that this is a mistake because I made no such endorsement at any point. I did not promote the activity and merely pointed to other points of view. As for mere discussion there was never any indication that it was not allowed, and certainly not serious enough for a permanent ban on a first offence, as no fewer than three different members of staff participated in the discussion for over two hours. Not to mention none of the other non-staff participants have been banned while engaging in the same discussion.
Rakuen"
Thread conten:
(last available version. Though I had subsequently edited my post to include a reply to Caroline Dax saying something along the lines that legalisation does not necessarily lead to increased consumption, using the difference between the Netherlands and the US on drug use. Some drugs are legal in the Netherlands but not in the US yet the Netherlands doesn't have a significantly increased population of drug users.)
Rakuen Growlithe
Today, 05:33 PM
I think it was a year or so ago that I found Tauriq Moosa on 3 Quarks Daily. He's also a South African and currently doing his Masters in philosophy, if I remember correctly. What he does though is write some incredibly interesting and informative essays. The ones I remember on 3 Quarks Daily were a strong criticism of "The Secret," a defence of the morality consensual incest and a defence of necrophilia. Pretty much he works on the same reasoning as I do, that offence and outrage are not valid reasons to outlaw an action. I later found his blog and he recently moved to BigThink where he has posted a short essay looking at whether we should consider decriminalising child pornography in order to reduce crimes against children.
No doubt this thread will quickly show the moral outrage side of the debate but perhaps also the side that looks at evidence and weighs up the consequences to see which path will give the best results. I would also recommend other people take the chance to subscribe to his blog since I expect more posts that push at taboo ideas but offer something worth taking away. In any case it is excellent to see someone looking at these issues and making the cases that most people aren't even prepared to consider.
"It seems to me that if we could consistently and conclusively show that allowing access to child pornography lowers violence against children, then we ought to allow access." http://bigthink.com/ideas/42407?page=all
-----
Zeke Shadowfyre (Super Moderator)
Today, 05:46 PM
My...what...is... My mind is full of fuck?
There's usually a reason why it is illegal. In what world are prepubescent children are going to volunteer to be used in pornography?
-----
Rakuen Growlithe
Today, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Zeke Shadowfyre
"There's usually a reason why it is illegal. In what world are prepubescent children are going to volunteer to be used in pornography?"
You didn't read article. :/ Possession would be legal, possibly of already made porn or of virtual porn where children are not harmed. Creating child porn would still be a crime because the act of creating it is harmful to children.
-----
Gavril
Today, 05:50 PM
but how do you decrease children being abused by providing material of children being abused
e: okayyy so children who were abused in the past = totally fair game. gotcha.
Also does this have to do with all those subreddits that got closed down? Because that was awesome.
-----
ArielMT (Super Moderator)
Today, 05:51 PM
This really seems like trading one evil for another, both committed against children, when neither evil should be committed at all.
-----
Fay V (Super Moderator and Site Admin)
Today, 05:53 PM
Necrophilia- pros: someone gets to have sex with something.
Cons: the rights of the dead and the loved ones of the dead. Now the first point depends on if you want to grant the dead rights or not. If you believe it is a lump of flesh then it's fair enough they have no rights. If you believe the dead have a basic right of respect, then necrophilia violates that as there is no way consent may be offered. The loved ones of the dead however do have rights, both to preserve the memory of the lost, as well as the assets lost, which includes the body. If you fuck a corpse you are debasing their property. This is also true for bodies donated to science, especially true in fact as then you have the ethical problem of corrupting scientific experiments.
But more importantly Con: diseases. Even in modern day corpses are a wealth of diseases. Even in labs where they use more preservatives than a twinkie factory. You need to be extremely careful handling dead flesh, and careful does not include penetration or being penetrated by. it is not so much more outrage as unethical to introduce opportunity for illnesses into society.
Incest I don't have much on. In general there's little chance of harm for one couple, but it doubles for each pairing. So a tradition of incest is incredibly harmful, classic point being royal families. The biggest problem with incest is the culture surrounding it. Most incest cases are not two consenting informed adults, but rather it is a matter of forced and arranged marriages. This perpetuates the pairings, and violates the rights of one of the couple if not both.
Child porn...wow just...where to start. The rights of the children. Not only is it an issue of abuse and manipulation to get the images, but it also violates the rights of the kids to their identity. Most will say that people have a right to control how their image is used, we have laws about that here in the states. You can't get sexual images of children without harming them considering they don't have the mental maturity to fully understand the situation and fully consent. It also assumes that pedophiles would just stop at pictures and say "good enough" when there is absolutely nothing to back that up. Pedophiles do have access to images now. They are out there, even though they are illegal. That hasn't stopped anything.
So there's more to taboos than moral outrage in many cases, especially in child porn, and necrophilia. In some cases incest as well.
-----
Zeke Shadowfyre (Super Moderator)
Today, 05:53 PM (Last edited by Zeke Shadowfyre; Today at 05:56 PM. )
Originally Posted by Rakuen Growlithe
"You didn't read article."
No, I read it.
:/ Possession would be legal, possibly of already made porn or of virtual porn where children are not harmed. Creating child porn would still be a crime because the act of creating it is harmful to children.
Possession would be legal, but stopping the production of it especially in territories where they have no laws against child abuse would continue to produce it. People would buy it, and the industry would continue. It wouldn't change much in stopping child abuse against children.
Virtual porn "may" help curb the urges of pedophiles by giving them an artifical outlet....which I can see as a lesser evil.
-----
Rakuen Growlithe
Today, 06:00 PM (Last edited by Rakuen Growlithe; Today at 06:07 PM. )
Originally Posted by ArielMT
"This really seems like trading one evil for another, both committed against children, when neither evil should be committed at all."
Possibly it is that. So the question is, would you allow some evil if allowing that evil reduced the total amount.
Originally Posted by Fay V
"Cons: the rights of the dead and the loved ones of the dead. Now the first point depends on if you want to grant the dead rights or not. If you believe it is a lump of flesh then it's fair enough they have no rights. If you believe the dead have a basic right of respect, then necrophilia violates that as there is no way consent may be offered. The loved ones of the dead however do have rights, both to preserve the memory of the lost, as well as the assets lost, which includes the body. If you fuck a corpse you are debasing their property. This is also true for bodies donated to science, especially true in fact as then you have the ethical problem of corrupting scientific experiments.
But more importantly Con: diseases. Even in modern day corpses are a wealth of diseases. Even in labs where they use more preservatives than a twinkie factory. You need to be extremely careful handling dead flesh, and careful does not include penetration or being penetrated by."
If I remember correctly one of the scenarios was if a wife tells her husband that he can have sex with her after she is dead (Edit: That is actually in a related essay). No violation of rights there and even consent. Dead bodies are not huge sources of diseases when they are fresh. You should probably read the article first anyway. Here it is http://bigthink.com/ideas/41643?page=all None of this is necessarily correct but the point is to question taboos, to force people to think about what they believe.
Originally Posted by Fay V
"Child porn...wow just...where to start. The rights of the children. Not only is it an issue of abuse and manipulation to get the images, but it also violates the rights of the kids to their identity. Most will say that people have a right to control how their image is used, we have laws about that here in the states. You can't get sexual images of children without harming them considering they don't have the mental maturity to fully understand the situation and fully consent. It also assumes that pedophiles would just stop at pictures and say "good enough" when there is absolutely nothing to back that up. Pedophiles do have access to images now. They are out there, even though they are illegal. That hasn't stopped anything."
Virtual images do not violate anyone's rights. Also you're not reading carefully, much as I predicted. You're getting upset and so apparently missed "if we could consistently and conclusively show that allowing access to child pornography lowers violence against children." In any case it isn't a completely hypothetical scenario, it was in response to a journal article showing that, in the Czech republic, crimes against children dropped when child pornography was legal while other crimes stayed the same.
-----
RTDragon
Today, 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Rakuen Growlithe
"Virtual images do not violate anyone's rights. Also you're not reading carefully, much as I predicted. You're getting upset and so apparently missed "if we could consistently and conclusively show that allowing access to child pornography lowers violence against children." In any case it isn't a completely hypothetical scenario, it was in response to a journal article showing that, in the Czech republic, crimes against children dropped when child pornography was legal while other crimes stayed the same."
Are you out of your fucking mind when you said that. legalized CP that's is just as bad. And necrophilla wow that is very nasty especially if you seen a certain sickening article called Dissected Chan.
-----
Fay V (Super Moderator and Site Admin)
Today, 06:18 PM (Last edited by Fay V; Today at 06:21 PM. )
I know how the pushing taboos works, That's what I did for a lot of my undergrad. Part of the problem with that is you end up making very extreme and unlikely hypotheticals so that you're forcing an emotional response or a logical one. Yes if a husband had sex with the wife just after she died and she gave consent before death then there's little ethical justification. However that's one of the least likely scenarios. Questioning taboos can be interesting, particularly to me because I love studying the physical reactions and how to manipulate the answers, but you ought to question why you are pushing the taboos. If it's something where you wish to change laws on an ethical basis, or change the normative ethics of society then you have to look beyond the small hypotheticals to the big cases and why that became an emotional reaction in the first place.
Also unless I am mistaken, here in the states completely virtual images are not illegal. However that means that every single part of the image has been synthetically created. If at any point a child is used then it is an issue of their identity rights. If you can prove that it helps then fine, the problem is proof is hard to find and in many cases it has no effect, or there's something within the issue beyond the images that are causing the effect.
The funny thing about these taboos, is often when people do bring it up they are looking for emotional justification. So saying things like "you're not reading" when someone brings up a point against. Automatically assuming an emotional/irrational response is an emotional/irrational response.
-----
CoyoteCaliente
Today, 06:28 PM
Guy sure is going through a lot of trouble to try and legalize his fucked up fetishes.
-----
Zeke Shadowfyre (Super Moderator)
Today, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by CoyoteCaliente
"Guy sure is going through a lot of trouble to try and legalize his fucked up fetishes."
It's nothing new. He's been doing this for a long time.
-----
Sarcastic Coffeecup
Today, 06:32 PM
How the fuck would decriminalised child porn reduce the child violence? If nothing else it adds it.
-----
Rakuen Growlithe
Today, 06:33 PM (Last edited by Rakuen Growlithe; Today at 06:35 PM. )
Originally Posted by Fay V
"Questioning taboos can be interesting, particularly to me because I love studying the physical reactions and how to manipulate the answers, but you ought to question why you are pushing the taboos. If it's something where you wish to change laws on an ethical basis, or change the normative ethics of society then you have to look beyond the small hypotheticals to the big cases and why that became an emotional reaction in the first place."
As far as I understand the reason is because emotional reactions are not valid reasons for saying what is and isn't acceptable or moral behaviour. The point is to work towards a rational society where the rules are founded on and supported by evidence.
Originally Posted by Fay V
"The funny thing about these taboos, is often when people do bring it up they are looking for emotional justification. So saying things like "you're not reading" when someone brings up a point against. Automatically assuming an emotional/irrational response is an emotional/irrational response."
The reason I said that was because the answer was found in the text.
Originally Posted by Sarcastic Coffeecup
"How the fuck would decriminalised child porn reduce the child violence? If nothing else it adds it."
Most likely reason would be it's an alternative to the real action. In any case, and part of the point, regardless of whether you think it should add to it or not you need to find out what the evidence says. If the evidence says it reduces child crimes then, whether you know why or not, you can say that it works.
-----
Fay V (Super Moderator and Site Admin)
Today, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by CoyoteCaliente
"Guy sure is going through a lot of trouble to try and legalize his fucked up fetishes."
The philosopher or Mr. Growlithe? If it's the philosopher then not really. They'll argue anything and everything and the more of a reaction the better. You just have to take it all with a grain of salt and recognize what you are using the argument for. Like I said, I've run those hypotheticals before, I had one where a brother and sister decide to have sex, he uses a condom, she uses birth control, and they'll never do it again. It's an interesting situation that gave a lot of insight into my research, however it's largely irrelevant to the larger ethical question of incest.
-----
Zeke Shadowfyre (Super Moderator)
Today, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Sarcastic Coffeecup
"How the fuck would decriminalised child porn reduce the child violence?"
Create robotic toddlers for that purpose. :V
-----
barefootfoof
Today, 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zeke Shadowfyre
"Create robotic toddlers for that purpose. :V"
Japan has probably already thought of this, and mass produced Cabbage Patch Kids complete with pull-string scream boxes, and fleshlights.
Ewwweweweewwwww
-----
Caroline Dax
Today, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Zeke Shadowfyre
"Create robotic toddlers for that purpose. :V"
I have seen pictures of "lolicon" dolls sold in certain Japanese stores.
Anyways, one might argue that child porn is already there and people already pay money for it, but as soon as you legalize possession you will see many more sick fucks buying it and where there is more demand for something, more will get created.
-----
Fay V (Super Moderator and Site Admin)
Today, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Rakuen Growlithe
"As far as I understand the reason is because emotional reactions are not valid reasons for saying what is and isn't acceptable or moral behaviour. The point is to work towards a rational society where the rules are founded on and supported by evidence.
The reason I said that was because the answer was found in the text.
Most likely reason would be it's an alternative to the real action. In any case, and part of the point, regardless of whether you think it should add to it or not you need to find out what the evidence says. If the evidence says it reduces child crimes then, whether you know why or not, you can say that it works."
Do you understand why you believe that Rakuen? Do you understand which ethical theories you are adopting when you say that? It's a philosophy from Utilitarianism and Kant and largely people have adopted that reason is the best thing. However when you disregard all emotional reaction then you're not going to recognize how emotional reactions go in hand with the rational or can even be the more rational choice if you take into account that your brain is wired to just make up a rational sounding reason. But that's all a matter of contemporary philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology really. Academics are just recently realizing that you can't divorce emotion from rationality. It's nearly impossible for the brain to do that and in many cases when someone does we consider them to be crazy or sick.
Anyway, yes for the sake of the argument I'll grant that our ethics need to have a foundation, and if not the ethics then certainly the laws. That doesn't change the fact that you can't simply look at small cases if you're looking for evidence and foundation. In the necrophilia example. Yes in 1 rare case consent could be taken care of, and disease would not be as much of an issue (no more than a living body). Now how many people have access to that consent...not many really. Even on top of that, how many people would have access to a fresh body? And I mean really fresh, because once rigormortis has set then you start getting issues. Even if someone has died in bed the time it takes to find them could already have elapsed too much time. That's only a few hours before bacteria and such starts to get into the body. If you are looking at the normative ethics of society (the ethics society is using) then small hypotheticals are fine for questioning how and why we react the way we do, but they do little to determine the overall case.
-----
barefootfoof
Today, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by Caroline Dax
"I have seen pictures of "lolicon" dolls sold in certain Japanese stores."
CALLED IT!
Even though I was only joking :s Faith in humanity -10 points.
-----
Zeke Shadowfyre (Super Moderator)
Today, 06:48 PM (Last edited by Zeke Shadowfyre; Today at 07:39 PM. )
Originally Posted by Caroline Dax
"Anyways, one might argue that child porn is already there and people already pay money for it, but as soon as you legalize possession you will see many more sick fucks buying it and where there is more demand for something, more will get created."
And that's always been the problem when someone mentions it to be legalized. There are already several countries that have very poor to no laws for human rights where the crap is produced. Will it stop people from trafficking? Not one bit, and that's one of the major problems that come from modern-day sex crimes.
-----
Lacus
Today, 06:55 PM
Okay, so I really don't have an argument for the necrophilia if it truly was consensual and if the body is fresh but still man, wtf to the max.
You're going to need better evidence than just "where it was legalized, the crime dropped!" That's not a valid piece of evidence. Correlation does not equal causation. For all you know, it could have been because they simply didn't have access to children. I personally have seen more evidence in modern psychology that the more you are exposed to it and desensitized, the more you will begin to think it is completely okay.
As for consensual incest, despite the overwhelming evidence that it begets an incredibly unhealthy relationship, if they wish to choose that I'm pretty all right with it, if they agree to not have children as that's the main problem that affects everyone else potentially. If they choose to be in a mentally unhealthy relationship, eh, fuck it. That's their decision. People choose to stay in unhealthy relationships all the time and they aren't even related to each other.
-----
Sarcastic Coffeecup
Today, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Rakuen Growlithe
"Most likely reason would be it's an alternative to the real action. In any case, and part of the point, regardless of whether you think it should add to it or not you need to find out what the evidence says. If the evidence says it reduces child crimes then, whether you know why or not, you can say that it works."
Not everything works this way. If you gave say child porn to already fucked up people easier even more fucked up
-----
Rakuen Growlithe
Today, 07:50 PM (Last edited by Rakuen Growlithe; Today at 07:53 PM. )
Originally Posted by Fay V
"Do you understand why you believe that Rakuen? Do you understand which ethical theories you are adopting when you say that? It's a philosophy from Utilitarianism and Kant and largely people have adopted that reason is the best thing. However when you disregard all emotional reaction then you're not going to recognize how emotional reactions go in hand with the rational or can even be the more rational choice if you take into account that your brain is wired to just make up a rational sounding reason. But that's all a matter of contemporary philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology really. Academics are just recently realizing that you can't divorce emotion from rationality. It's nearly impossible for the brain to do that and in many cases when someone does we consider them to be crazy or sick.
Anyway, yes for the sake of the argument I'll grant that our ethics need to have a foundation, and if not the ethics then certainly the laws. That doesn't change the fact that you can't simply look at small cases if you're looking for evidence and foundation. In the necrophilia example. Yes in 1 rare case consent could be taken care of, and disease would not be as much of an issue (no more than a living body). Now how many people have access to that consent...not many really. Even on top of that, how many people would have access to a fresh body? And I mean really fresh, because once rigormortis has set then you start getting issues. Even if someone has died in bed the time it takes to find them could already have elapsed too much time. That's only a few hours before bacteria and such starts to get into the body. If you are looking at the normative ethics of society (the ethics society is using) then small hypotheticals are fine for questioning how and why we react the way we do, but they do little to determine the overall case."
I believe that because emotional reactions are not pathways to the truth and are subject to numerous flaws that we have from our past and I want us to be able to move beyond gut reactions to a world that is fairer and a better place to live for everyone. I do still need to learn more on various ethical theories but currently what I'm standing by is a rights-based approach generally based on the idea of the golden rule and creating a system of rules that you would accept while not knowing what position you will get in that framework and then supported with utilitarian principles of welfare for mediating conflicts of rights. Emotional reactions may be a part of us and they might be important in making personal decisions but they are not good for deciding what the best course of action is.
Ethics should have a foundation and the laws should follow on from ethics and be in place to protect people from one another and maintain a fair society. That was a rare case but at current where there are laws and taboos against necrophilia they will not acknowledge such an exceptional case. That sort of rigidity needs to be questioned as well and I would say the law needs to be more flexible. Those small hypotheticals are important when you realise that if they were real situations then they would affect real people. The overall case should not be at the expense of those people that are in a unique situation but must make space for them too.
Originally Posted by Lacus
"You're going to need better evidence than just "where it was legalized, the crime dropped!" That's not a valid piece of evidence. Correlation does not equal causation. For all you know, it could have been because they simply didn't have access to children. I personally have seen more evidence in modern psychology that the more you are exposed to it and desensitized, the more you will begin to think it is completely okay. "
It's not enough alone and it's not the strongest case that there could be, but the important question was what would you do if the evidence were strong? For example there's strong evidence that decriminalisation of drugs leads to less usage and is generally better for society but drug use and possession is still heavily penalised in some places, particularly the US.
said in IM, will restate: you were banned for your track record, and for the fact of the discussions you opened. you brought the cat out of the bag to be discussed, where just anyone could discuss it. wrong place, wrong time. Though the mods in particular provided a particularly well-addept participation in the discussion as a whole, it was obvious how they viewed your track record on the site. Questionable, at best.
said in IM, will restate: you were banned for your track record, and for the fact of the discussions
My track record was following all the rules, never once getting so much as a warning and, for the most part, being polite even while being personally attacked. In this case a questionable track record just means disagreeing with the majority decision, which is not something to be banned for. The discussions I initiated and participated in are important for individual liberty and rational thought and are the same discussions that happen in journals, blogs and articles all over.
My track record was following all the rules, never once getting so much as a warning and, for the mo
in case you haven't noticed, individual liberty is a complete myth now adays. 'If you think you're free, try walking into a deli and pissing on all the cheese.'
in case you haven't noticed, individual liberty is a complete myth now adays. 'If you think you're f
Freedom is for everyone, not for a single individual to do whatever they please but to maximise what everyone can do. You can't walk into a deli and piss on the cheese because that is infringing on others property. If you wanted to piss on your cheese you can because that does not impose on anyone else. In return, as part of a social contract, no one will piss on your cheese without your permission.
Freedom is for everyone, not for a single individual to do whatever they please but to maximise what
Well, holy shit. Another person who actually believes in rationalism and making policy based on reason over visceral emotion! *grins and salutes appreciatively* And you've been discriminated against for that, though I have no idea why you'd conduct such arguments over at that god-forsaken cesspool (fun fact: FAF is seceding from FA right now). They really hate rationalism over there, especially if you're a cub porn enthusiast or zoophile. I use FA out of necessity, and I only read FAF during special times such as this. If one is prudent and wise the staff at either place can't prevent even a banned person from doing that.
I actually go further than you did. I publicly disclose on my Inkbunny profile I'm a hebephile, and recently made a journal defending child porn and adult/child relationships to a very limited and age-based degree. There are so few places I can say things like that with impunity, and that is a critical reason I'm very loyal to Inkbunny and use it as my primary social and intellectual base of operations. Of course, it's also an art site, so I can combine rhetoric with pubescent cub smut!
As you can guess, I've faced discrimination and hatred for my views. FWA denied my panel because of my views (the chairman told me this to my face), a panel which would have helped some people and was totally irrelevant to my social commentary. I recently had a thread locked on MLPForums when I started this line of discussion on a thread about sexual offender registries and the admins involved seem to be disgusted by my commentary, though they only locked the thread and took no further action. However, overall I haven't encountered much overt and unmitigated hostility, though I don't know whether the primary reason is lack of exposure or me proving to be harmless and unintrusive.
I really wish I could expect people to be more rational. However, most people are mediocre beings whose belief systems match what they were raised with, furries included. Therefore, the truth frequently infuriates people, even supposedly tolerant and enlightened bronies (though one recently read my Inkbunny profile and seems unfazed). I just by default expect someone to be enraged if they know of some of my beliefs, so I am emotionally quite distant and defensive in general while also courteous and approachable.
Well, holy shit. Another person who actually believes in rationalism and making policy based on reas
Well the ban was supposedly about forum discussions but I think I've pointed out that none of that was wrong. I still do believe the ban was primarily because of my criticisms of FA and the discussion just provided an excuse for Dragoneer. I know about FAF leaving FA. It's kinda funny because it will mean I was banned from FA for something I didn't do on the site and that didn't break any rules and for ostensibly for something that was done on a site that is no longer even a part of the FA family. And my ban on FAF will be unfair and handed out by a person who is no longer an admin and who the forum actually broke away from.
Well the ban was supposedly about forum discussions but I think I've pointed out that none of that w
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
