Isn't it strange how the administrators of this website seem hesitant to remove certain individuals?

Individuals who are, shall we say, problematic in nature? Certain individuals who wish to wield a strong bow against the Jewish people, for example, or who think that sexual intercourse with dogs is a thing about which to boast. They receive warnings for their content, despite having been here for years posting the same content with no intention of stopping. Whereas I was almost instantly suspended for daring to write posts challenging conservative Christianity.

Very strange, indeed.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

Some of the really perverse stuff seems to just slip through the cracks unfortunately

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@SW-User But perversion is in the eye of the beholder. One man's perversion is another's pleasant evening.

SW-User

@ninalanyon pedophilia, racism, and sex with animals are all things I do not give a shit if it's someone's pleasant evening it shouldn't be accepted behavior anywhere

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@SW-User Well I agree with you about those things. But the label perversion is rather more inclusive in some people's "minds".

CorvusBlackthorne · 100+, M

@ninalanyon I feel we should all have a common definition of that word, or not use it at all. You are correct that some use it to refer to individuals who are not hurting anyone with their sexual preferences.

SW-User

@ninalanyon yes but I was speak of those more extreme perversions

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@SW-User Fair enough. But where you draw the line is not where others who use the same label draw theirs.

SW-User

@ninalanyon yes I know but I do think like Corvus said there are some lines that the majority of people can draw and agree on and there are people here who engage in the three I mentioned that slip through the cracks