Ah yes because posting on the internet in a manner that is not a proximate cause of a sexual action is a sexual action.
This might be the most ludicrous and overextended usage of the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy I have ever seen.
Idk about anyone else but I’m mostly just amused by the “legal liability” angle they’re taking. As a private company they have the right to let whoever they want on their site. If they just came out and said “no, we don’t like MAPs” that would be fine.
Nobody I’ve seen has tried to change writscrib’s mind (tho I’m sure some have and I just haven’t seen it), it’s mostly been people laughing at their poor understanding of law. Like… literally all you have to do is say “no, fuck off, we don’t like you” but you insist on making up some weird excuse and it’s fucking hilarious.
Plus they misinterpret the issue in a rather gross way. It’s wrong to have sex with kids not because kids said no, it’s because kids can’t consent. Or does @writscrib imply they can’t consent too?
This is for that person who sent me an ask earlier suggesting that I should discuss the legal liability side since that would be more appropriate!
Believe me: the people that are outraged really don’t care about the legal liability argument. Here’s your evidence for that.
As for the people in this chain: you’re all being blocked (if you aren’t already). Leave us alone. You had your answer. Be satisfied that Tumblr gives you a safe space and stop dragging this around.
What a mature response. Yeah, we will leave you alone, but who will sponsor your site? I don’t know who will want to be a part of a network that is run by people who can’t answer a simple question and threaten to block users instead (so far only threaten, since I clearly am not blocked). Maybe antis will want to join your site, but antis are mostly teens and don’t have money.
It is mature, and “doesn’t allow pedophiles to openly be pedophiles on the site” is hardly the site-killer that I think you guys believe.
I actually didn’t block you quite yet, but the rest are blocked.
To answer your question: The issue is that kids can’t consent, period, to an adult soliciting them. And the fact that the pedophiles and their sympathizers that refused to take a no continued to the point of needing to be blocked (none of the other faces here are unfamiliar) doesn’t bode well for their ability to take a no.
Finally: I think it’s really funny that your implication seems to be that we’ll sink financially if we don’t welcome pedophiles onto the site. I reassure you that pedophiles are not the driving force of finance online. Have a nice day.
