S.L.Acker wrote:I was in the hospital while the actual text of my ban was put down, I'd like to know what exactly it was about my position in the debate that was so offensive as to be worthy of an instant ban? I thought my clarification should have made it clear that I never actually supported any act involving a child and an adult and that the one position supporting it was based on facts that I was rather far off on. Note that the moment this was pointed out I backed off and made sure that it was clear I had done so.
I understand that the subject matter hits people right in the 'dear god why?' section of the brain. I really do, however I think my ban was unfair as I was basically playing devil's advocate the entire time. Yes it was a stupid position to even try to take and I was rightly ripped a new one for it, however I don't think it was worth the instant ban. I understand that other members feel the same way on the issue.
While I understand that my coming back likely isn't palatable, I would simply like to know what the logic behind the ban was given my clarified position.
Thank you for your time,
Dalton wrote:Even playing devil's advocate on this particular issue disgusts me, and you've already been on my radar more than once. You've proven to be a kissass and a suckup, a tryhard wannabe and someone who jumped in and not only got your fingers burnt but your ass set on fire.
Them's the breaks. My decision stands.
S.L.Acker wrote:So this entirely comes down to a personal distaste then? You'll go lax on members throwing around actual hate speech (e.g Bluewolf) and breaking a site rule, but you were just waiting for me to do something. Glad to know that challenging issues can still be talked about freely on SDN...
I just wish the members who know that this shit isn't fair had the balls to stand up to you.
Dalton wrote:"Besides, I've noted that what worked for ancient Greece wouldn't work today. However in doing so I also showed that men screwing twelve year old boys hasn't always been seen as a bad thing, and indeed can be a positive for both members of such a relationship." - Simon L. Acker
In case you didn't get the memo, I'm an Admin. That means second only to Mike Wong himself. If I think that you discussing a "challenging issue" by playing devil's advocate on pedophilia/pederasty means instant perm-ban based on rules Mike Wong himself wrote, guess what: Fuck. You.
Have fun flailing in impotent rage because you were banned from an internet discussion board. Also: Bluewolf was perm-banned. You useless hatfucker.
I think several people here can attest to the fact that I've made bad judgment calls in the past. I somehow doubt this will be counted among them.