

Because it was designed to hook kids and they knew it. It’s what some of the recent lawsuits are about.
Clinically depressed, chronically online,
Socialist discordian statist for open science,
Independent journalism and gay crime.
My Communities:
!art_alchemist_guild@lemmy.today — Ask, share, learn and show off with the most DIY of artists.
!cool_rocks@lemmy.today — For cool rocks.
!brandnewsentence@lemmy.today — For brand new sentences
!Independent_Media@lemmy.today — Independent world journalism news feed.
!indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works — Independent news from Canada.
!wildfeed@sh.itjust.works — Trash. Global, diverse news, reports, blogs and listicles.
I keep making communities. Please help.
This is my main account.
Former Me:
ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
icytrees@lemmy.today
trash_goblin@piefed.zip (fuck piefed)
icytrees@sh.itjust.works
woad@lemmy.ml
Land back. Do drugs.


Because it was designed to hook kids and they knew it. It’s what some of the recent lawsuits are about.


You’re confusing me with someone else.


Just to be clear it was a permanent ban from that community. The other ones were temp bans.


Nope, no nuanced opinions allowed.


It isn’t a day on lemmy if someone doesn’t call you a nazi for bullshit reasons.


You mean where you started calling me a molester, misgendered me, and said I defend fucking kids? No thanks. You seem too riled up for the kind of conversation.


Are you really arguing that laws are synonymous with morality?


I appreciate that. I like Lemmy for the most part, and the response is pretty much what I expected.


Why does it interest you?


You’re mad because I was busy for a day?


Engaging in debate is fun and a great way to test your knowledge and biases, I don’t know what else to tell you.


Again, I’m not dying on it and I’m not in favor of incest. I thought it would be an interesting post for this community.


The varieties of ways incest can be harmful are already, or should be illegal. Incest in itself isn’t harmful unless they’re producing children with each other.


To be fair I’m not arguing for incest, I’m arguig against it being criminally punishable.


Because incest isn’t inherently bad and we already have crimes for all the reasons it could be bad.


I specifically said she was likely grooming her son, which is bad. I’m against incest being a crime.


It was a permanent ban from that community and a seven day ban from the others. So I guess I did get more?


Wow. Still mad that a bunch of people shut you down last time, hey?
I post here because I enjoy the posts here, so I contribute.


That’s called a bad faith argument. I stated in my comments that people need to be capable of and enthusiastically consenting.
I’m opposed to overreaching laws based on ideas about sexual purity.
For instance, under Canadian law, two people who don’t know they’re blood relatives who begin a sexual relationship can be guilty of incest if they later learn that they’re related and continue that relationship. And that seems insane to me.
What if she owns the penis museum?