This is the third thread I make on this guy. Lolkek made a rule 2 joke, and I punished him for it, yet after a few hours, he was unbanned.
He went on to edit the message HOURS later to make himself appear innocent, nobody is buying this. You wouldn't get banned for NOT being attracted to children. So there would be no other reason he said so.
When I tried to question him about it, all he did was say "Big 'P", mentioning child porn once again.
His supporters, cannot justify this. Most mods even agreed he should be banned and so we did.
His supporters are mainly failbaiters on this website that try to anger other users by saying degenerate statements. I dont fall for it, but I dont find it pleasant either.
Lolcow's "Debate Conclusion" Refuted
The debate didn't conclude, it was actually halted due to Lolcuck's refusal to post or write any kind of argumentation, again; The debate was about if Islamic Nations illegalize CSAM. He conceded on 3 countries until we got to the Iraq point in which he began moving goalposts and halting the dialectic.
His point was that the Iraq law only prohibits CSAM due to its general regulations and that it doesn’t explicitly mention CSAM.
My point was that this would be an admission towards the fact that Iraq has laws applicable towards CSAM, and it’s not on the same level as people that consume pornography due to the child exploitation factors and the punishment that comes with it.
Child abuse and child exploitation is explicitly prohibited alongside such content. Sure, you could say there isn't a direct statement but this still falls under the fact that the Iraqi law prohibits this especially since CSAM accounts for multiple crimes in one rather than just the general pornography umbrella. So yeah this isn't really a win in his case, he just forcefully was separating categories.
He went on to not reply to this point and halt the dialectic.
The ban reason was actually valid, you said "I would get banned if I answered truthfully" to a question asking if you were attracted to children, no one can defend this. Even other moderators said that this is a blatant rule 2 statement but a staff member was so corrupt, they decided to unban Lolkek obviously out of favour or giving them a "chance". Retarded, but that is indeed what happened.
That is the evidence, and if you want to refute said empirical evidence, then you'd have to explain that you meant something different but that obviously wasn't apparent, so either you concede to making a Rule 2 joke or you try to lie yourself out, either of which will be refuted.
Not to mention, you exited the thread on numerous occasions, and let your other baitcord groomers try to brap or flood the thread with SNCA or hype but they ultimately all failed and it backfired on them instead. This isn't a good "debate conclusion" opening statement because all of these are baseless claims, except for the fact that you answered a question with something obviously Diddyphilic.
Lolcock's FAQ
@lolkekkeklmaolmaolmaoxdhaha @Dove @jersey Lets debate.
Btw Aout is a disturbing criminal and the Titans of Tartarus empire could execute all of these people and their Discord servers. They dont have any good Discord resources and tools.
He went on to edit the message HOURS later to make himself appear innocent, nobody is buying this. You wouldn't get banned for NOT being attracted to children. So there would be no other reason he said so.
When I tried to question him about it, all he did was say "Big 'P", mentioning child porn once again.
His supporters, cannot justify this. Most mods even agreed he should be banned and so we did.
His supporters are mainly failbaiters on this website that try to anger other users by saying degenerate statements. I dont fall for it, but I dont find it pleasant either.
Lolcow's "Debate Conclusion" Refuted
The debate didn't conclude, it was actually halted due to Lolcuck's refusal to post or write any kind of argumentation, again; The debate was about if Islamic Nations illegalize CSAM. He conceded on 3 countries until we got to the Iraq point in which he began moving goalposts and halting the dialectic.
His point was that the Iraq law only prohibits CSAM due to its general regulations and that it doesn’t explicitly mention CSAM.
My point was that this would be an admission towards the fact that Iraq has laws applicable towards CSAM, and it’s not on the same level as people that consume pornography due to the child exploitation factors and the punishment that comes with it.
Child abuse and child exploitation is explicitly prohibited alongside such content. Sure, you could say there isn't a direct statement but this still falls under the fact that the Iraqi law prohibits this especially since CSAM accounts for multiple crimes in one rather than just the general pornography umbrella. So yeah this isn't really a win in his case, he just forcefully was separating categories.
He went on to not reply to this point and halt the dialectic.
The ban reason was actually valid, you said "I would get banned if I answered truthfully" to a question asking if you were attracted to children, no one can defend this. Even other moderators said that this is a blatant rule 2 statement but a staff member was so corrupt, they decided to unban Lolkek obviously out of favour or giving them a "chance". Retarded, but that is indeed what happened.
That is the evidence, and if you want to refute said empirical evidence, then you'd have to explain that you meant something different but that obviously wasn't apparent, so either you concede to making a Rule 2 joke or you try to lie yourself out, either of which will be refuted.
Not to mention, you exited the thread on numerous occasions, and let your other baitcord groomers try to brap or flood the thread with SNCA or hype but they ultimately all failed and it backfired on them instead. This isn't a good "debate conclusion" opening statement because all of these are baseless claims, except for the fact that you answered a question with something obviously Diddyphilic.
Lolcock's FAQ
You didn't present your views and instead went on to ignore my arguments therefore halting the dialectic. The dialectic was already halted by you so there was no way for me to halt it especially after I put forth an argument, also there was no rebuttal to reply to, except for the fact that you stated you'd be banned if you answered truthfully to a conversation asking you about your attraction to children.>Sad to see the cope, but unfortunately, it's true! Blocking your opponent from presenting their views in a debate is called a forfeiture, and that's exactly what Warrior-Z did. He couldn't handle my argument, so he resorted to banning me instead.
I already cited the evidence, and again, you stated you'd be banned if you answered truthfully to a conversation asking you about your attraction to children. Whether you meant that as a joke or not would fall under Rule 2, I could show this to everyone on the website and they'd agree. As a matter of fact, I'll be making a thread on this, nobody could defend you except for Finocide cord bait members lol.>No evidence cited. Warrior-Z tried to ban me over this, but his decision was quickly overturned by the site's administration.
Those weren't your efforts, do not try to discredit the actual moderators who did work during the early days, you are simply bad product. And not a good manager. You left CP up for hours.>Calling me that is completely disrespectful to my tireless efforts fighting the CP spam during the early days.
Liar, you tried to kill the site multiple times, and you are indeed a child predator.>If it weren't for me, this site would be long dead by now
No you did not, I have tried to get you back on track multiple times but since you're gonna try to appeal to experience, I'll debunk your next line here:>I have answered him numerous times, and he just kept dodging my responses.
This doesn't apply to the dialectic nor does it refute the empirical evidence at hand, this is an appeal to experience fallacy and doesn't give you any sort of authority upon the law framework I've used to refute what you've said.>To make it abundantly clear: I have worked with a few civil orgs and law firms to strengthen my nation's laws against CSAM,
Again, even if this were true this does not refute the empirical evidence at hand, this is an appeal to experience fallacy and doesn't give you any sort of authority upon the law framework I've used to refute what you've said. Also send me a pdf of said referendums, you're using site lingo to try to get more people on your side.>and I have already submitted referendums to multiple standing MPs (in both the previous and current House of Representatives)
It's not absurd, because I'm again, using the lawful framework that you're trying to converse upon, and it's funny how you only try to bring this up now to present yourself as a holy figure when you were obviously Diddybaiting the whole thread.>To call bullshit on my claims is beyond absurd, as I've helped bring light to the issue and am actively working on getting it resolved. Unfortunately, Warrior-Z doesn't actually know much, he just asks GPT to glaze for him while citing non-existent evidence (hurr durr criminals get tried for 2 laws ackchually!!).
So this is just saying "nuh uh" when someone calls your arguments out for being fallacious? Go ahead and tell us which point I gave up.>It's a TRVTHBOMB, a TRVTHNVKE even. Warrior-Z already conceded so I don't care what they/them think.
You're not the center of Discord or the Soybooru, you got unbanned unjustifiably, probably because they wanted to give you another chance, this is Finocide all over again. You have been utterly BTFO'd within the conversation, couldn't refute what I said, couldn't track and instead resorted to sending little girls and little boys in the thread in order to cope with your own damage.>You need to stop taking this soyjak business so seriously and go breathe some fresh air outside. Me getting unbanned isn't the end of the world, and neither is Warrior-Z's pathetic defeat. Next time, learn some actual debating skills and come more prepared. Losses happen, take the L lightly, admit your defeat, and move on.
My shoulder is so broad and muscular, you may rest upon it. Nobody would hide from you, I was actively looking for you until now where you decided to show up, and by the way; I just clipped your Diddyphilic statement and I will be exposing you once again with what you have said, every single Soyteen already knows that you are a strange and disturbed person. Who also hangs out with Aout, a disturbing criminal.>I am graciously stepping up to accept all condolences on behalf of Warrior-Z, since he is currently too busy hiding in absolute shame after getting utterly mogged and publicly executed in the marketplace of ideas. Please send him your best wishes and support, he is going to need years of therapy to recover from this total humiliation.
Yeah, of course I'll debunk your retardation if you're obviously wrong lol. That is a pretty natural reaction for a philosopher.>Oh, and by the way? I'm muting this thread. Go ahead and furiously type out your heckin' 5,000-word essays crying about how I'm wrong.
So you admit that you halted the dialectic once again? W concession and W admission, we just keep stacking those Ws.>I won't read a single syllable of it. You are literally seething into the void while I live rent-free in your heads.
@lolkekkeklmaolmaolmaoxdhaha @Dove @jersey Lets debate.
Btw Aout is a disturbing criminal and the Titans of Tartarus empire could execute all of these people and their Discord servers. They dont have any good Discord resources and tools.
Mymykiller1488
It's BBC..... Half jewish and half turkish.if i dont respond to your bait it means i didnt fall 4 it
5 days ago#1408196
Spongies little age is 1 cause she is a abdlfag
5 days ago#1408221
i don't ever ever ever read rules but i thought it was just common sense to not be like this retard.
Mymykiller1488
It's BBC..... Half jewish and half turkish.if i dont respond to your bait it means i didnt fall 4 it
Log in to reply to this thread.