thehurtbear Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Except this wasn't an act performed by a child' date=' this was (I assume) an adult intentionally creating an image that depicted a child in a sexualized pose posted on a website visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people who would object very strongly to its presence. [/quote'] your right , thousands of people will object to it , but that still doesnt give the nazis a right to outright ban him . a warning of removal was what should of been , and then a ban if the author refused to comply . If the people don't like what's on that website' date=' they won't visit it and the website will go out of business. This means that they WILL take down anything that threatens their business. [/quote'] no .. if the people dont like what they see they shouldnt look at it .. why should mature adults suffer just because people dont want to see something ? thats why there are software that allows the freedom to block these types of things , adblock+ for example , allows you to block images with 2 simple clicks .. your way of thinking is what leads to age ratings to high for movies and video games in general , governments demanding developers to censor there games because the majority of people dotn want to see some titties . YET fully mature adults who have children of there own are being denied access to this freedom because "people dont want to see it" . its a pthetic excuse and it can easily be avoided , and this is why censorship exists in t he fitst place ... This is the world we live in' date=' where the majority of people don't like ANY depiction of underaged sexuality. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying that's the way the world is. Until something comes along to change people's view on this, we'll just have to suck it up and deal. [/quote'] it is unfortunatly how the world works .. your abolsutely right . its blantanly completely corrupt , but yea , thats how it works .
Ms. Lucy Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Emma, you're defending what just about everybody would consider child pornography, digital or not. The Nexus mods ban for stupid reasons all the time but this was by no means a stupid ban nor are they Nazis for it. Get a grip. The OP willfully took a screenshot of a child in a compromising pose and posted it on a public website visited by thousands of people a day and was banned for it. That sort of dumbassery doesn't deserve a second chance. I'd have banned him in an instant too if I was in the moderators position.
Soulslayerzx Posted June 18, 2012 Author Posted June 18, 2012 Thanks emmalong, seems like we think very much alike. Children always touch their crotches at school and masturbate, worst case I've seen was a kid in health class suspended for jacking off. This simply was a bunch of polygons mashed up together and not an actual child. The child was wearing clothes, so it wasn't nudity anyways. The ban reason was"Posting Child Nudity". I obviously did not, it was just a picture of the jarl's son wearing his underwear and touching his crotch. Simply an invalid reason for my actions, that lazy fuckin admin. If anyone has read my long wall of text sent to the admins of the website, then I furthermore shouldn't have been banned at all if Romeo And Juliet were allowed to be played in the US and UK. Juliet was showing her bare naked boobs and she was only 13. Honestly, it was pretty funny anyways, just seeing how the nexus would bitch at polygons touching each other. Just a kid wearing clothes touching his crotch? Michael Jackson had some crotch-touching dances, all just because he was an adult? The main point is that this isn't even a real person. If they were going to deal with my image professionally, then it should've been a warning about influencing sexual activity to the younger audience. Well, I put it in the adult-only section, so kids aren't suppose to see it anyways. Seriously, if people don't like something don't look at it.
Queen Bee Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Seriously' date=' if people don't like something don't look at it. [/quote'] Have you ever gone into a restaurant and seen a picture like this one? You didn't post that picture on your own website that you run off your own server. If you had and you got shut down, then yes, I'd say your argument is valid. But you didn't. You used someone else's website, and they didn't like what you put on it. It's like if you went to someone else's place of business and posted campaign posters for a politician they didn't like, or anti-abortion posters that showed aborted fetuses. If they don't like it, they don't have to give you a valid reason for taking it down and banning you from the premises. Its their place of business. Don't like it? Don't do business with them. That's capitalism. Deal with it.
thehurtbear Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Emma' date=' you're defending what just about everybody would consider child pornography, digital or not. [/quote'] umm parents see there child naked when they are born all the way through until they are about 10 years old and not only that but babysitters see other parents child naked as well are you saying babysitters should be punished for that ? we also see naked starvign children in africa , perhaps you should direct your complint to the BBC for filming naked children . THERE IS NOTHING wrong with posting children , fully clothed , doesnt matter where they hands are . if they were touching there penis or vagina then o k .. thats a ban , i understand that ofc . UNFROTAUNTLY all the culture in western countries are corrupt when it comes to nudity , all they think about when they see a naked body is "sex" , they refuse to see it as anything else but something usable for a object of sexual desire . the conscious form of nudity in america and uk is always focused on sex sex sex sex sex and dont see other sides to it . and for the record .. im NOT defending child porn .. i hate it and wish it was abolished , but what soulslayer posted WAS NOT child porn !!! edit: and no im not mad im just f***ed of with the amount of ignorance in this world .. edit 2: Thanks emmalong' date=' seems like we think very much alike. Children always touch their crotches at school and masturbate, worst case I've seen was a kid in health class suspended for jacking off. This simply was a bunch of polygons mashed up together and not an actual child. The child was wearing clothes, so it wasn't nudity anyways. The ban reason was"Posting Child Nudity". I obviously did not, it was just a picture of the jarl's son wearing his underwear and touching his crotch. Simply an invalid reason for my actions, that lazy fuckin admin. [/quote'] thank you ... thank you for understandng me and realising what reality of life really is ..
Queen Bee Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 edit: and no im not mad im just f***ed of with the amount of ignorance in this world .. To be brutally honest, if you see a picture of an underaged boy in a pose depicting masturbation and wonder why people are associating it with sex, then they're not the ones being ignorant.
Ms. Lucy Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 The child was masturbating. That's child pornography. What about that don't you understand?
turbosnowy Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Ms.Lucy - a post that sums it up in my mind - thank you for that 100% agreement. QueenBee - I am thinking we likely would not agree on all things but you can put together a good intelligent argument in my view Can we just delete this thread now? Would like to think Emmalong is playing Devil's advocate but I doubt it, or s/he is thinking everyone in the world is just like her and therefore does not see the problem. I am not a fan of censorship by any means, nor the self righteousness attempting to impose their views on others, but this is a potentially nasty subject that if left to continue has a chance to involve some pretty unsavoury opinions being floated about before long which won't do this site any favours either...
Ark of Truth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Ok jumping in here. @Emma Ok it might not of been child porn but it sure as hell wasn't politically correct which was the reason he was banned. Even though he was clothed. @Lucy Emma's not defending it. There is a big difference between nudity and porn. That child was clothed from what I saw. The ban reason was"Posting Child Nudity". I obviously did not, it was just a picture of the jarl's son wearing his underwear and touching his crotch. Simply an invalid reason for my actions, that lazy fuckin admin. Comes under sexual based content, even though it was not PORN it was sexual based picture. There was no reason for his hand to be anywhere near his crotch let only touching it.
thehurtbear Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 The child was masturbating. That's child pornography. What about that don't you understand? masturbation involves grabbing and holding a penis , and trying to make it ejaculate ..... the picture he described , the child was simply holding his hand around his pants area , WHILST CLOTHED . im glad the moderators on this site are faily open minded and welcome all views from the spectrum , and allow me to freely express my opinions and views on such subjects .
Queen Bee Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 QueenBee - I am thinking we likely would not agree on all things but you can put together a good intelligent argument in my view Thank you for the compliment' date=' I always try to argue my case with a level head and a logical mind. I hope no one thinks I'm [i']against[/i] them on this. I sympathize, but I have a different perspective on things. Can we just delete this thread now? Agreed. We could go around in circles forever and never truly see eye to eye on this. It's a thing that happened, it sucks, let's move on.
thehurtbear Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Can we just delete this thread now? Agreed. We could go around in circles forever and never truly see eye to eye on this. It's a thing that happened' date=' it sucks, let's move on. [/quote'] if someone doesnt like a thread then dont read it .. these types of discussions are needed in order to correct the mistakes and make clear of the fog . i personally enjoy these tpyes of debates , and now your wanting to close the door on me just because you personally dont want this . edit: were also living in a age where people who make legitimate points are called trolls .. i have been called a troll before because of my outlandish opinions but thats who i am and if you dont like me , you have the BLOCK feature . please moderators keep this thread open to any and all who wish to participate in this discussion ..
Queen Bee Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 It's one thing to rationally debate a point, but another to needlessly go around in circles. There's no shame in admitting we can't see eye to eye and parting ways on the subject. It benefits no one to keep this thread around. Personally, I'm done with it and I won't be posting here again. Keep it up if you wish, whatever makes you happy.
Ms. Lucy Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 The child was masturbating. That's child pornography. What about that don't you understand? masturbation involves grabbing and holding a penis ' date=' and trying to make it ejaculate ..... the picture he described , the child was simply holding his hand around his pants area , WHILST CLOTHED . im glad the moderators on this site are faily open minded and welcome all views from the spectrum , and allow me to freely express my opinions and views on such subjects . [/quote'] The OP directly stated in the first post the boy was masturbating. Doesn't matter if he was clothed, in the context that image was posted (a mod that makes everyone naked) it's pretty obvious what is going on and what it is. EDIT: It's pretty obvious you can't, or won't, see the issue here so like queenbee, I'm done. Agree to disagree and all that noise.
turbosnowy Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Same here, I have made my views clear - nothing more for me to say on this matter.
Ark of Truth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Even though it was not nudity or porn and the child was clothed it was a illegal picture either way. There was no legit reason to post a image of a child in their underwear with this hand near his crotch no matter what the mod was for. He did and he was banned as a result. You cannot justify no matter which way you try and put this. Sites can be closed down for this sort of thing Emma which is why the rules are in place to begin with.
thehurtbear Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 and my last post in this thread , then soulslayer was unjustingly accused and banned for posting something that was neither nudity nor porn , despite the fact the nazi nexus site has the checkbox "this image contains adult content" . thing are only bad if you think that way about it ..
Ark of Truth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 and my last post in this thread ' date=' then soulslayer was unjustingly accused and banned for posting something that was neither nudity nor porn , despite the fact the nazi nexus site has the checkbox "this image contains adult content" . thing are only bad if you think that way about it .. [/quote'] Yes you are correct, it didn't contain porn or nudity but it did contain a adult theme which is why he got banned. It was a child pretending to mastibute which is what the issue is here. He would of got in trouble or maybe banned here too.
Trykz Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Posting about Nexus bans here, is very much akin to "preaching to the choir" Time to let it go, and just let this fade off page 1 Trykz
Soulslayerzx Posted June 18, 2012 Author Posted June 18, 2012 Yup. Things are only bad if you think about it that way, sad how they couldn't conclude that maybe the son of the jarl was itching his crotch and not masturbating. Oh well, there's a bunch of porn mods on there and movies played in the US and UK with nude minors and the Nexus's Terms of Service stated that as long as it is not beyond that. Mine was not beyond the acceptance of the US and UK with the child's clothes on. I followed their terms of service and they either didn't know their terms of service well or they acussed me of commiting something that I did not. One thing for sure that I can refute on is the fact they banned me for posting "child nudity", an invalid reason for a picture of a boy wearing clothes and touching his crotch. Pretty sure most reasonable people could say that they banned me for the wrong reason as the defintion of nudity is: The state or fact of being naked: "scenes of full-frontal nudity". Here's a screenshot of the ban message. My picture did not. So for one solid fact, The Vampire Dante banned me for the wrong reason. I don't know what other reason he could've substituted, but it is clear my picture had not done that and it was simply a picture of a boy touching his crotch. Maybe you could say it's bad influence of a cartoon/fantasized character doing naughty actions and could affect little kids, but my file was in the adult-only section. Lol. He even got the ban completely wrong. My mod just made everyone not wear armor or clothes and left them to innerwear. It was just one picture not the mod. It is proven that either he is either a lazy admin, an unprofessional one, or simply a half-assed degenerate fucker. Yes, I'll end this discussion then. Just stating the facts.
Ark of Truth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Yup. Things are only bad if you think about it that way' date=' sad how they couldn't conclude that maybe the son of the jarl was itching his crotch and not masturbating. Oh well, there's a bunch of porn mods on there and movies played in the US and UK with nude minors and the Nexus's Terms of Service stated that as long as it is not beyond that. Mine was not beyond the acceptance of the US and UK with the child's clothes on. I followed their terms of service and they either didn't know their terms of service well or they acussed me of commiting something that I did not. [/quote'] that's the nexus for you. I'm not saying it was fair as you most likely didn't mean it in a sexual way but you should of thought about posting a child in it's underwear with it's hand near it's crotch before even posting it. Just put it down as lesson learned and leave it as that.
Jexsam Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 You do realize if you simply hadn't stripped the children too, you'd've never been banned. You made two critical mistakes. You stripped the children, and you posted a picture of a boy in a very sexual position. If you can't see why those were wrong and stupid decisions, you kinda deserve the ban.
Machismo111 Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Can't help myself, gotta chime in. I gotta say, I understand both sides. OP, you didn't put up a picture of a naked child, that is correct, but you did display an image that could be classified as "child pornography". Check it out: The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Yeah, technically you could argue no one can prove the child was deliberately manipulating his genitals for physical pleasure, maybe, but that shit doesn't need to hit a jury in order for whatever political entity to shut the site down permanently. The Nexus sites are getting pretty big, and as a result have a lot more attention. A lot more whiney people that will start reporting crap they find "offensive", and as a result a lot more drama for the operators of the site. In order to stay in business they need to be a bit cautious, which I think is totally understandable. I'll add, lest I appear frail and puritanical, that I don't find pixels in the shape of a kid the least bit offensive. I find actual kids starving to death quite a god damn lot more offensive, yet alas our tax dollars go to making sure people think the same way rather than fixing actual human quality of life. There I go mentioning politics - don't let me start a political hubbub, but this is basically all just politics. Cover your ass, prevent unnecessary bullshit. A warning might have been a bit better, but c'est la vie. Simulated images of kids touching themselves is technically against the law, regardless of right and wrong.
Monsto Brukes Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 to the op: if you manage to see this post it'd almost be a miracle as it's so far downline now. . . but... Something i don't think you understand: Classic Pedophiles go to GREAT LENGTHS to rationally explain their pov. Michael Jackson spent hundreds of millions 'rationally explaining' and defending his pov for example that "it's a very loving thing for a child to sleep in an adults bed" . . . which is true when my 6yo daughter sneaks into my bed in the middle of the night and crashes in between me and the wiff, but it's obviously fully different with Mike. I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE A PEDOPHILE by any stretch. What i'm saying is that your original post comes off that way. A child touching genitals, in any depiction (paint, clay, polygons, pixels, any), will be viewed by the average person as pedophilia regardless of your explanation. I get that you don't understand how some people could either 1) get off on it 2) think that people get off on it. If you understand the average persons fear that "someone is trying to get off on that image"... if you understand that you're not going to change the world on this topic, then you'll realize that posting something like that won't be received well.
Soulslayerzx Posted June 19, 2012 Author Posted June 19, 2012 @Machismo111: Yea, that about resolves it. Nexus is a pussy. @monsto: Seems you have a great understaning of classic pedophiles. If people are weak or get unahappy seeing some cartoon kid touch his crotch, that's their problem bitchin over minor matters. That second half is irrational as saying that liking pedobear makes you a pedophile. Plus, I don't really care what you think or your defintion of a pedophile. The point made was that thevampiredante wrongly acussed me of something I didn't do and consecutively banned me for it. Wrong reason, invalid ban.
Recommended Posts