Deleted posts - Science section: Homosexuality thread moderated by Aqualung

Sorry I can't drop links here; I'm typing this out on my phone.

In that thread about homosexuality, I was just drawing parallels to other "disorders." It was a valid comparison—there was zero incitement to violence, no personal attacks, no hate speech, nothing of the sort. There are much more intense discussions on this topic over on Psychology Today, so I don't see why this had to be scrubbed. And since I wasn't the one who initiated the comparison, why did it get deleted right then? Because it made sense? Society hasn't even reached a total consensus on this, even if certain things were removed from medical manuals. There’s no justification for deleting posts other than censoring opinions that someone finds uncomfortable. I didn't even call homosexuality a disease; I was trying to show how definitions and attitudes shift throughout history. It's more about social norms and taboos than anything objective. Honestly, I would have expected someone to complain about the relativization of pedophilia—which is arguably the biggest taboo we have—rather than what was sent to me in a private message as the reason for the deletion. Apparently, my point was "not okay" and they assumed that's what I actually believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think, and that's fine. My posts shouldn't be deleted just because they don't align with a moderator's personal values, especially when they follow every single forum rule. This is a clear abuse of power.

I also wonder if the rainbow avatar indicates the moderator's sexual orientation; I don't recognize the username, so I couldn't say. If it does, it feels a lot like that situation where John lost his moderator status because he used his authority to delete dissenters during a discussion about his religious group.

After consulting with the moderators, we’ve decided that you crossed a line, just as I pointed out to you both in our private messages and within the thread itself.
The reasoning behind this seems pretty clear, especially given the points you raised yourself.
Drawing those false equivalencies was completely inappropriate, and frankly, your attempts to downplay the issue of pedophilia were unacceptable.
Other members jumped in almost immediately, but instead of sparking a meaningful debate, it just turned into a mess.

Issues like this shouldn't be censored; rather, they need to be handled with the right level of seriousness and decorum—something you failed to do in this instance.

The arguments here—whether we're talking about the topic itself or your role as a moderator—all point to one thing: this simply isn't right. Using moderator tools just because you personally dislike an idea is pure censorship and an abuse of power. That kind of ego-driven gatekeeping should be left to middle schoolers.

Beyond the fact that you don't like what was written, what's the actual reason? Is it off-topic? Insulting? Hate speech? Just point to a specific rule from the forum guidelines that those posts supposedly violated. They aren't even making negative comments regarding homosexuality (which isn't even my aim; even if one chose to view it through a clinical lens, it’s just me rambling, not an attempt at judgment). They are trying to highlight social taboos and comparisons. Using moderation powers to settle an ideological clash rather than enforcing rules is completely unjustified.

Since when did homosexuality become such a sacred cow that you can't even discuss the social processes and contexts surrounding it without being censored? I'm trying to be objective here, avoiding both homophobic and homoerotic clichés as much as possible.

Is it really such a holy subject that any mention lacking total adoration warrants a deletion because someone took offense? What are your criteria here? Are you supposed to be guarding the rules of discussion, or are you deciding which opinions are "correct" and scrubbing the rest?

If you can't maintain some distance and stop using your mod status whenever an opinion rubs you the wrong way, then maybe you shouldn't be moderating at all.

I’m honestly struggling to see how you still don't grasp the core point you were making through your own messages. To be clear, equating homosexuality with pedophilia or any kind of pathology is something that has been flagged before—and you've actually done it several times now.
Beyond that, you seem to be trivializing pedophilia as if it were just another sexual orientation, which ends up making a mockery of both subjects.
My stance remains the same: these ideas simply aren't compatible with the kind of society we are striving to build today. But regardless of my opinion, I'll say it again: your approach to this topic was completely inappropriate, which was clearly reflected in how other users reacted. Quoting those reactions is unnecessary at this point.

There is no question that these are issues we cannot afford to ignore.
That said, I’m asking you to take a moment to really think about what you want to communicate. If you genuinely want to spark a discussion, please do so in a constructive, respectful manner within the appropriate subforum and thread.

If you’re still confused, take a good look at my profile; you'll see there isn't a rainbow in my avatar. Whatever little insinuations you're trying to make are irrelevant, regardless.

Ronald Morales51 said:They actually went as far as banning anyone from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or any other kind of pathology.

This subforum is for natural sciences. It should be a place to toss out hypotheses without getting bogged down by someone's political leanings. As long as you aren't inciting violence—which wasn't the case here—comparing different states is perfectly legitimate, I guess.

Both those things fall under the same umbrella of variations. The only real difference is that one version is socially and politically acceptable to some people, while the other isn't.

I still think those ideas are just inappropriate for the kind of society we're aiming for today.

I don't know if everyone is actually aiming for the same thing. If we were, there wouldn't be any issues to begin with.

There's no question that these are topics that can't be ignored.

But they're heavily censored by the "progressive" crowd at the expense of the "traditional" ones.

So much 😁

Since we’re talking about the hard sciences here, I haven't seen a single high-quality idea pop up in those threads; honestly, they were posted and then immediately forgotten without yielding any positive results.
The claims that homosexuality is a pathology or that pedophilia is a sexual preference—to paraphrase, of course—simply cannot serve as a foundation for any legitimate debate. The reasons for that are more than obvious.
I’ll say it again: when you're dealing with such sensitive topics, you need to approach them with decorum and stick to the appropriate subforums.

I believe I've covered everything.

Ronald Morales51 said:Drawing those parallels is honestly out of line, and frankly, your attempt to trivialize pedophilia is just wrong.

I really don't want to step into this mess, but I think you guys are missing the mark here...

One of the core pillars used by the LGBTQ+ community is precisely that comparison to the animal kingdom, where they claim homosexuality is also present...

So, if human homosexuality is being compared to animal behavior, then it feels pretty logically inconsistent to censor comparisons between human homosexuality and other types of human behavior, including things like pedophilia...

bluemason3 said:Hey everyone, sorry I can't include any links in this post—I'm just typing this up on my phone right now...

I can't exactly link back to the thread since your posts were wiped out. Just being a little bit captain obvious here...

bluemason3 said:When I was discussing homosexuality, I was just drawing parallels to other different types of "disorders." In my mind, the comparison was actually a perfectly valid way to build an argument. I wasn't calling for violence, making personal attacks, using hate speech, or anything like that... honestly. I’ve seen much more intense threads on psychology forums where people go way overboard, yet those posts don't seem to get wiped out. So, if I didn't initiate the comparison myself, why does the thread only get deleted once I bring it up? It feels like there's a specific logic behind it that I'm just not seeing...

You started this one off by quoting: "It’s just as useless from an evolutionary standpoint since it doesn't actually lead to any offspring...When we’re talking about this subject, I think we really need to distinguish between the legal definition and the actual biological reality. If you look at it from a strictly physiological standpoint, a thirteen-year-old girl is biologically capable of having children. Because of that, the gap between what society considers the "norm" and the biological baseline isn't actually as wide as people make it out to be when comparing it to the shifts we see regarding homosexuality... 😁"

Aquafina put that really beautifully...

I was just sitting here thinking about that old track by Aqualung, and it really got me reflecting on how much musical tastes change over the years... It’s funny how certain melodies can just pull you right back into a specific headspace, isn't it? I find myself revisiting those classic sounds quite often lately, just to unwind after a long day at the office... There's something about that particular atmosphere that feels so grounding... kaže:
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this lately, and I really wanted to share my take on it... It feels like one of those things that people tend to overlook, but when you actually stop to weigh the facts, a much clearer picture starts to emerge. I'm not trying to be provocative, but there is a certain logic to this argument that seems to hold up under scrutiny if you look at it from the right angle... I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the discussions we have here regarding human identity and how society labels certain behaviors, and I wanted to share my perspective on the idea that homosexuality is a pathology... It's such a heavy, complex topic that touches on everything from medical history to our modern understanding of psychology. In my view, looking at it through a purely clinical lens as a "disorder" feels like an outdated way of seeing people, especially given how much our scientific consensus has evolved over the decades in the States... It seems more helpful to view these things as natural variations in the human experience rather than something that needs fixing or treating... I'm curious to see what others think about where that line should be drawn... I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean there... could you elaborate a bit more on what you're looking for? I'd love to help out once I have a better idea of the direction we're heading in... I’ve been thinking a lot about how we categorize different types of human attraction and preferences lately, but I really have to disagree with the idea that pedophilia should be classified as a sexual preference... It’s such a heavy and complex topic, and when you look at the fundamental nature of consent and the psychological impact on development, it just doesn't align with how we define healthy orientations in our society... It feels like a distinction that is absolutely vital to maintain for the safety and well-being of everyone involved... I’m just paraphrasing here, of course. You can't really call it a valid debate if you're starting from a flawed premise, and honestly, the reasons behind that are more than obvious...

I just wanted to jump in here quickly because, honestly, it feels like you haven't really caught up on the thread—maybe you only skimmed the very last page or something. Since you aren't one of the moderators over there, you wouldn't have been able to see all the posts that were scrubbed from the record anyway. That whole discussion was absolutely crawling with insults and pure vitriol from all sorts of homophobes and people who clearly lack any depth of thought. You actually kicked things off with that specific sentence I quoted earlier, and I’m sorry, but I just can't get past it... to me, that sounds like nothing more than thinly veiled hate speech...

bluemason3 said:In general, when this topic comes up in professional circles, the consensus among experts is pretty much unanimous—even if they’ve gone ahead and scrubbed it from the official list of diagnoses. There really isn't any logical justification for removing it, other than outright censorship to silence anyone whose perspective doesn't sit well with those in power... I wasn't actually calling homosexuality a disease; I was just trying to make the point that these kinds of definitions and viewpoints are incredibly relative. They shift constantly throughout history. My intention was more about questioning how social norms and cultural taboos evolve over time rather than making an objective claim about biology... Honestly, I expected you to be more bothered by how this trivializes pedophilia—which is currently one of our strongest social taboos—than by whatever was sent to me in my private messages as a reason for this. I'd hate to think that’s actually what you believe...

Well, at least you didn't call it a disease, just a disorder. And thanks for the advocacy, I guess...

Let me quote you again: "Of course the distinction lies in the fact that a child can be harmed, which is why it's equated to rape, but from a psychological or whatever perspective you want to take, from the standpoint of natural disorders, rather than legal regulations meant to protect victims instead of demonizing a phenomenon, I don't see much of a difference, especially since homosexuality seems 'more natural' to me" even though those scales are pretty nonsensical and subjective. "

You talk about how meaningless and subjective these scales are (whatever that means to you), yet you just have to jump at the chance to mention that homosexuality is "unnatural." :slow clap:

Quote:>>

bluemason3 says: >> Yeah, that's exactly what I think, and there's nothing wrong with that. I can't have my posts deleted just because they don't align with the moderator's personal values, even if they follow every single forum rule perfectly. It's a total abuse of power.

Sure. Total abuse of power. If you had approached the topic differently, maybe the moderators would have handled things differently too...

Quote:>>

bluemason3 says: >> As an additional question, does the moderator's rainbow avatar indicate a homosexual orientation? I don't recognize the handle, so I'm not sure. If it does, then this situation is very similar to when casualtiger2 lost their moderator status because they used their authority to delete dissenters during a thread about their religious group.

Since you're already complaining about your posts being removed, at least have the decency not to troll this specific thread.

There's no point in discussing that other deleted post; it had nothing to do with the topic. It was taken down for being off-topic (and you weren't even sanctioned for it)...

Regarding what you said about pedophilia: "But that's done to protect children, not because pedophilia itself is so uniquely messed up compared to everything else; that intense feeling is just an irrational taboo caused by society's need for 'virgins' to castigate."

I've said my piece, and I don't have any intention of getting into a further debate with you. Take care...

Kate Bishop76 said:You started this by saying: "It's just as evolutionarily useless since there's no offspring produced. But for pedophilia, that doesn't apply to legal standards, just biological ones, because a 13-year-old can technically have kids. So the "shift" from the "optimum" is actually smaller than it is for homosexuals 😁"

Regarding pedophilia, you say: "But that's done to protect kids, not because pedophilia itself is so much more messed up than anything else; that specific feeling is just an irrational taboo caused by society's need for 'virgins' to be outraged over"

Quoting you again: "Of course the difference is that a child can be harmed, which is why it's equated with rape, but from a psychological or whatever perspective you want, from a standpoint of natural disorders, rather than legal regulations meant to protect victims instead of demonizing a phenomenon, I don't see a significant difference; homosexuality seems even 'less natural' to me even though those scales are pretty meaningless and subjective. "

Where exactly is the hate speech? He's just putting forward some theories people might or might not agree with.

The only possible answer is that it's in the biases you're projecting onto someone else's words. You claim it's hidden, so if it's hidden, maybe just leave it hidden instead of stirring the pot.

You talk about how meaningless and subjective these scales are, yet you didn't miss the chance to mention that homosexuality is "less natural." :slow clap:

And what exactly was said wrong? He gave his opinion that homosexuality is less natural than pedophilia. This sub is for natural sciences; you could have provided data showing that x% of the population is homosexual and y% is pedophilic, making one "more natural" than the other. Instead, you're projecting your own political beliefs onto his statements on a natural science forum.

Sure. Total abuse of power. If you had approached the topic differently, maybe the mods would have acted differently too.

On topics like this, I'm honestly always curious to hear how someone could express those ideas without getting hit with all the nasty labels thrown at anyone who questions the civilizational status of homosexuality.

I guess nobody's going to answer.😁 The whole idea is just trying to break taboos by creating new ones 😁

Plus, you keep labeling people as homophobic. Phobias are basically mental health issues that should be handled by psychologists or psychiatrists, so I guess one could argue your stance is actually just disguised hate speech against people dealing with mental health struggles they didn't ask for.

But hey, you're just stating your opinion, I suppose 😁

Ronald Morales51 said:Since we're talking about hard sciences here, I haven't seen a single decent idea in those threads. They were posted, sat there for a day, and achieved absolutely nothing positive.
The claim that homosexuality is a pathology or that pedophilia is a sexual preference—to paraphrase, obviously—can't serve as a premise for any real debate. The reasons are pretty self-explanatory.
Again, we're dealing with sensitive topics. They should be handled appropriately in the right subforums.

I think I've made my point.

Right, because that’s the main difference between this post—which is clearly overflowing with concrete scientific arguments, subtle irrefutable logic, and an aura of total genius—and yours, which sat there for a few days longer than mine without yielding any results at all. But clearly, there's no reason to delete it, right? Is it because you like what's being said, or did I just miss the undeniable scientific value because of my own intellectual limitations preventing me from grasping such profound depth and relevance? 🤔

Tippy said:Only an idiot would draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Your "paraphrase" is a huge stretch. I didn't claim either of those things outright; I was making comparisons within a specific context, not using absolute value judgments—which, for the record, I don't subscribe to anyway.

Even if that were the case, it could still be a basis for discussion. If we have the right to free speech and expression—which is a fundamental constitutional right in America—then we have the right to examine any issue from every angle. Blocking that is nothing more than ideological censorship.

And if a subforum isn't appropriate, just move to another one. That shouldn't have anything to do with deleting posts that aren't any different from the ones preceding them.

Kate Bishop76 said:I can't link the thread because your posts were deleted. Just being a little captain obvious here.

Anyone got some links on this? 😉

You started this off by quoting: "Just as evolutionarily useless since it doesn't result in any offspring.When we talk about pedophilia, we need to distinguish between legal definitions and biological reality. A thirteen-year-old girl is biologically capable of having children. Because of that, the actual "deviation" from what's considered optimal is arguably less extreme than it is in the case of homosexuality. 😁"

So? Do you actually see a logical fallacy here? Is there hate speech, off-topic rambling, or any other actual rule violation? I get that you don't like what I said, but deleting posts just because they rub you the wrong way—without a legitimate reason—is a clear abuse of power.

Aquafina put it pretty well:

It might sound nice, but it’s just pure sophistry. It feels like a desperate attempt to rationalize an impulsive decision under the guise of ideological censorship. I didn't even write what they claimed I did. I wasn't trying to redefine anything, nor did I start these comparisons—I was simply building on a conversation that was already happening.

I'll just add a quick note here, since it seems pretty obvious you haven't read this thread—maybe only up to the last page. Since you aren't a moderator over there, you wouldn't have been able to see the deleted posts anyway. That whole discussion was crawling with insults and hate from all sorts of homophobes and intellectual lightweights. You started things off with that sentence I quoted above. Sorry, but to me, that’s just thinly veiled hate speech.

I'll admit, I haven't caught up on the previous posts yet. Naturally, that means I can't see anything that's already been deleted.
Hate speech isn't some hidden or obvious thing that you can just label whenever you feel like it. Honestly, if you find it offensive, that’s your business, but it’s no reason to go around hitting the delete button.

You talk about how scales are meaningless and subjective—whatever that means to you—yet you still manage to find an opening to claim that homosexuality is "unnatural." :Slow clap.

It’s not an absolute issue, just an unnatural one if you follow that logic. I'm talking about the inconsistency here—this tendency to use shifting, subjective criteria to label things right or wrong. It feels less like a series of serious, rational arguments and more like people reacting emotionally because they've internalized whatever social norms happen to be trending at the moment.

It’s irrelevant. You’re still framing this as a disagreement over an opinion rather than a violation of the rules. By doing that, you're basically admitting the mods are using their power to censor people based on their own personal "ideology." Given how much trouble they've faced for this before, I wonder if we're actually going to be consistent here, or if certain social issues are just considered untouchable now. 😁

Sure. Total abuse of power. If you had approached the topic differently, maybe the mods wouldn't have reacted this way.

All I see is that no actual rule violation was cited—just that you didn't like what was written. 😉
Are you suggesting that how someone enters a discussion should depend on whether a moderator finds it personally acceptable, even when no rules are broken? Are you really looking for trouble? 😁

If you're going to complain about posts being deleted, at least have the decency not to troll this thread.

That isn't trolling. It’s a legitimate point, especially since I brought up past precedents from the board. Of course it matters if someone has a personal connection to a situation; it provides context and highlights why their judgment might be subjective. That argument would hold up in any US court, so I don't see how you're calling it trolling.

There's no point discussing the other deleted post; it's off-topic. It was removed because it drifted from the subject (and you weren't even sanctioned for it).

Go ahead and quote both full posts right here so we can all take a look. 🙂

Timothy Robinson2 said:Not everyone deserves those glowing compliments usually handed out to people who question the societal impact of homosexuality.

Regarding that, the real measure of civilization is whether they have the same rights as everyone else. And yes, pedophilia absolutely needs to be criminalized because, given a child's lack of maturity, it’s essentially an indirect form of rape.

None of this has anything to do with examining the underlying psychological drivers or the social mechanisms that dictate how we react to these phenomena.

Any social pressure against freedom of thought or inquiry does nothing for the truth—and certainly nothing for science, which is what this is actually about. Unfortunately, we live in a society where many psychiatrists might privately view homosexuality as a disorder, yet they won't say it publicly for fear of ruining their careers.

So, it’s purely a matter of social pressure and ideology. When you bring in repressive tools—like forum moderators—you’re moving into censorship territory.

To be clear, I’m not claiming homosexuality is a disorder. I’m saying it’s treated as one within specific frameworks where other similar things remain classified as disorders. We are seeing double standards born from indoctrination and social taboos rather than reason, science, logic, or actual argument.

Even if I am wrong, that isn't a valid reason for deleting posts. We all know why posts get removed. Deleting content simply because a moderator disagrees with it is, again, an abuse of power. Those moderators should be removed immediately if they can't distinguish between the two, especially when they insist that their personal opinion on a topic is the benchmark for both the "legality" and the very right of a post to exist.

I truly regret not stumbling upon this discussion regarding homosexuality much sooner, as I would have steered the conversation toward more rigorous natural science perspectives to prevent these various misunderstandings from arising in the first place.

bluemason3 made an astute observation noting how societal attitudes toward homosexuality and pedophilia have shifted significantly throughout the course of history.
In certain historical societies, homosexuality was either tacitly accepted or even openly embraced, whereas in others, pedophilia—or what we define by that term today—was considered entirely commonplace. For instance, historical accounts note that Muhammad married Asia when she was only nine years old.

It is quite evident that varying socio-cultural contexts dictate vastly different approaches to the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia.
Where I believe bluemason3 erred, however, was in the assertion that homosexuality is evolutionarily useless simply because it does not result in direct offspring. If we look at the "kin selection" or "good uncle" theory, homosexuality can actually serve a vital evolutionary purpose. During periods of extreme scarcity, such as an ice age, the survival rate for a community's children remains incredibly low unless there are individuals who, while not producing their own offspring, dedicate their resources to helping raise their relatives' children. To put it simply, it is a strategic trade-off where quantity is sacrificed for quality, ultimately ensuring a greater number of surviving descendants in the long run.
Now, some might point out that in our modern, developed American society, we aren't exactly facing constant famine. Nevertheless, the need for the "good uncle" role is actually higher now than ever before. In a developed nation, the necessity of prolonged, expensive education and an extended period of childhood is a fundamental requirement for every child, which inherently demands the support of the broader community and those "good uncles."
Conversely, pedophilia stands in total opposition to the desirable extension of childhood; therefore, it will never be morally acceptable in any advanced society. This stands in stark contrast to homosexuality, which, as the demand for specialized education grows and the planet becomes increasingly crowded, may actually become a more advantageous characteristic for the species.

Attempting to grasp the moral values of a society through purely rational thought is a difficult, if not impossible, endeavor. These values are shaped by a complex blend of inherited cultural traditions and evolutionary pressures exerted through kin selection.
I hope this is clear, as I would prefer not to have to revisit those classic moral dilemmas—like whether to pull a lever to save five people at the cost of one innocent bystander, or the more harrowing scenario where a doctor sedates a patient to harvest five organs to save five other lives. Even though the mathematical outcome is identical, the perception differs wildly based on the context: we call the switchman a hero, yet we label the doctor a psychopath.

Ultimately, moral values are relative and contingent upon the broader needs of a society; in this framework, homosexuality is likely to become increasingly integrated, while pedophilia will remain—and already is—universally condemned.
Most people process this on an emotional level, reacting to trends and social shifts, which is a standard pattern of human behavior, whereas others are capable of approaching it with cold rationality.
The former group will inevitably react with outcry and panic, while the latter will maintain a calm, reasoned composure, and frankly, nobody is going to give a damn about the noise the first group makes. 😬

Look, deleting posts isn't the issue here. It just keeps a debate going that really belongs in its own thread. Honestly, either move everything that isn't strictly science over there, or just clear out the "off-topic" stuff—don't just pick two random posts to scrub. I'm not going to get dragged into a back-and-forth about it. People can disagree, sure, we can dissect the logic all day, but this isn't the place for it. It doesn't prove whether the original point was right or wrong, and it doesn't justify why things are being deleted. As far as I can tell, the only reason this is happening is because someone didn't like an opinion they read. 🤷

It is quite possible that my colleagues haven't quite caught on to the fact that your perspective actually intersects with the natural sciences, specifically regarding evolutionary kin selection and its ties to sociobiology.
One could certainly draw parallels to the Dawkinsian concept of the Selfish Gene, though, moving forward, I think you really ought to present those arguments more clearly.
As it stands now, you're essentially equating pedophilia with homosexuality, which is a legal impossibility here in the States, and we prefer to stick strictly to the letter of the law. 🙄

If the previous posts weren't particularly obsessed with scientific perspectives, why are these specific ones causing such a stir?

Can you actually quote that law for me? 🤔

Man, you're something else. 🤦
I have to wonder, how on earth have you managed to moderate all this stuff for so long? 🤷

Am I being difficult just because I disagree?

Either I’ve actually broken some forum rules, or my posts were unfairly deleted simply because the mods couldn't stomach my take. What kind of mental gymnastics is that?

If you claim a specific law exists, surely it shouldn't be that hard to find? It’s possible, sure, but the idea of a law stating that equating pedophilia with homosexuality—which was basically the subtext of those posts—carries a two-year prison sentence sounds ridiculous. I can already see the undercover moral police lurking in local bars, waiting for someone to say, "well, they're all the same," just so they can swoop in for a verbal offense. 😁
It's also funny how all those loudmouth pundits who publicly make those same connections are still walking free. 😁

Honestly, I'm pretty sure a law like that doesn't even exist. 🤔

So now I'm the one being "difficult," but isn't this just a way to dodge the argument? Is the goal here to see who gives up first rather than determining who's actually right?

bluemason3 said:Am I being difficult just because I refuse to back down on a point?

Either I’ve actually violated some community guidelines, or posts are being deleted without justification simply because a moderator disagrees with a specific perspective. Honestly, what kind of mental gymnastics are required to justify that kind of behavior?

If you're claiming such a law exists, surely it shouldn't be that hard to produce it? It is entirely possible there is legislation out there, but the idea of a law stating that equating pedophilia with homosexuality (which is essentially the implication drawn from those comments) carries a two-year prison sentence seems highly improbable to me. I can almost picture some undercover morality police agent lurking in an American diner, listening in, only to swoop in the moment someone makes a controversial remark like, "well, they're all the same thing," and arrest them for a verbal offense. 😁
It also strikes me as quite curious how all those loudmouth pundits who publicly link the two so casually are still walking free. 😁

So, if you ask me, a law like that simply doesn't exist. 🤔

And now I'm labeled as the difficult one, rather than it being a case of everyone else just being exhausted? What kind of logic is that—where the winner is decided by whoever gives up first, rather than whoever is actually right?

Good grief, 😲 surely it's obvious to you that pedophilia will land you in prison while homosexuality won't. 😕

You have completely misunderstood the situation. ☕

shadoworca3 said:Look, you’re equating pedophilia with homosexuality, which isn't legal here. We play by the rules of the law. 🙄

It sounds like equating them is what's actually against the law.

Obviously, those two things aren't legally the same. I explained my reasoning in my posts—it’s about protecting minors, not because I think pedophilia is inherently a different kind of disorder than things that aren't criminalized. What's the distinction between a rapist and someone practicing rough BDSM involving roleplay? In the first case, there's no consent and freedom is violated, which is always the case with pedophilia due to age. In the second, it's not a crime because it's a consensual "game" between adults, even if the impulse feels similar. Similarly, a pedophile having a relationship with an adult dressed as a student isn't breaking any laws.
That's just pivoting back to the subject matter rather than discussing why my posts were deleted. Is what I wrote illegal? No. 🙂

None of that has anything to do with my actual posts.

Nothing I wrote broke the law.

Nothing I wrote broke the forum rules, either. It can't be off-topic since there are plenty of other unmoderated posts following the same logic with views that clearly don't bother the mods.

It isn't hate speech, unless you believe that seeing some hidden agenda in someone—which I claim doesn't exist in me, but people see reptiles running global politics—is somehow a crime.

The argument that I'm being "annoying" is also a stretch, simply because I dare to disagree.

On the other hand, we never get a valid reason. Every time, the conversation shifts from the moderation itself to the content of the discussion. Instead of justifying deletions based on forum rules, they just pivot to saying we don't like what was written.

So, what's the real reason for the deletions?

Don't treat me like an idiot. If there is a legitimate justification, give me a specific reason and quote my post. If you truly believe it's off-topic, hate speech, or illegal, let's stick to that and go through the quotes to see if it actually exists.

You're just throwing out vague excuses without any substance, because there really isn't any. Posts are being deleted in the heat of the moment due to personal disagreements. It's pretty obvious. 😉