In case anyone is wondering, it’s rqd2.
The definition of paraphilia is “a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.”, which can inclde pedophilia.
It has recieved 4 censures from fediseer due to the content contained on that instance
Not a good look for Lemmy to be promoting any instance like that.
Update: A pull request was sent to remove the sus instance. It should no longer show up soon
Removed by mod
I do not care if people have a cuckolding, scat or whatever fetish they want, as long as it involves consent of some sort.
Children cannot consent for sexual acts. Being at the recieving end of such actions irrepeairably scars their mental life forever; and any person who’s ok with this deserves torture before death.
If you actually read my post, you would know we’re on the same side.
deleted by creator
Ok, that has literally nothing to do with my argument, which is to not punish person x for what person y does.
deleted by creator
The point of the thread is to hide an instance from search, which punishes more than just the unethical people OP is straw-manning about.
deleted by creator
Sure, but if the knife enthusiasts group is also promoting to you a “Slashing Children With Knives Enthusiasts” group, I think it’s worth criticizing.
And it is absolutely worth hiding from people who want to use it if the group in question is hosting pedophilia.
Speaking as a gay guy, there is an astroturf effort from the alt-right to try to paint the LGBT community as being so “inclusive” as to also include literal pedophiles, as if it’s just another sexuality or kink, and I’d rather prefer to nip that squarely in the bud by drawing a very hard line.
Who’s promoting? This is just a list of the top instances by popularity.
I’m not going to engage with a response that’s completely lacking in any semblance of good faith.
Lacking good faith would be the people trying to punish person x for what person y does, period.
Whose purpose is?
That is a piss-poor analogy. Considering that you’re trying to defend the indefensible, though, I’d say it’s the least of your problems.
I’m defending not punishing person x for what person y does.
Understood. I don’t know where you’re from, so let me tell you about a common legal concept in the United States: aiding and abetting. Basically, if you knowingly help someone commit a crime (possessing cp), you’re often guilty of a crime as well. Plus, there’s the issue of distributing cp. That’s a crime in itself.
To me, though, the legal details are secondary. My biggest issue is informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent. Therefore, any sexual pictures/video are exploitation. That’s not okay.
Just the other day, I was talking with someone about the important difference between morality and legality, but in the case of cp, I think they got it right.
(If you choose to reply, take your time. I’m headed out and won’t be able to answer right away.)
Including an instance in a search is not aiding and abetting.
Oh. We’re talking about slightly different things here. I was arguing against the instance existing at all.
As for aiding and abetting, I can see it being successfully argued that yes, having the instance show up IS aiding and abetting. Granted, it’s not as clear cut, but if it’s proven that the people maintaining the search engine knew it was an instance that contained cp, that could be a major issue.
If your friend sits at the table with a bunch of nazis, your friend is a nazi.
The nazis in this story are the ones who want to eliminate an entire instance due to impurity.
Are you fucking high or just stupid?
You realize that they host MAP, beastiality, and zoophilia communities?
It’s one thing to host kinky communities (a-ok as long as it’s legal), it’s another to host pedo communities. Check the fediseer link listed in the post for examples.
Hate to ask, but it’s probably better than searching, what’s MAP in this context?
Minor Attracted Person
So you think people with more ethical kinks should be punished because unethical communities exist?
deleted by creator
I am defending the ethical users having a place to go.
The ones who are “hell-bent” are the ones eager to use their pitchforks on the entire instance, ethical or otherwise.
deleted by creator
You don’t get to decide what I am defending.
deleted by creator
It is not asinine to want person x to not get punished for person y’s crime.
being a pedo is not a kink. don’t really understand why it’s that hard to understand.
What you are doing is called the straw man fallacy. Obvs pedophilia isn’t a kink, and you would know I wasn’t defending it if you had good reading comprehension skills.
Yeah I guess when your dumass said “It’s ok to have a community for kinky people.” I mistakenly thought that you meant that pedos are a kink community. Honestly don’t know how I could have misread that. fuckwit
No, it’s like criticising a murder enthusiasts group because murder is a crime.
You’re right that the post is badly written, because it just sorta says “this is a place that promotes paraphilia!” But in this particular case, this server hosts reprehensible content and is not just a community for kinky people that happens to have pedos on it.
It’s like if there were a knife enthusiast instance where the largest local community was about committing crime, where the admin self-identifies as being into commiting crimes. It’s absolutely true most knife enthusiasts have no interest in committing crime, and therefore the knife enthusiasts who don’t want to commit crime probably wouldn’t join the server that promotes crime.
The analogy falls apart a bit because it’s true that they’re not doing anything illegal over there, at least not publicly. But they’re still promoting viewing kids sexually, promoting sexual contact with kids, even talking about nude photos of kids.
Ok, pedos are here now.
I’m more of a milf guy but keep pushing your narrative if it makes you feel special.