- Members allowed to view this conversation
- Everyone
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread5-24 of 46 posts
- Last Next ›
Robert Adamant - go to this post
I never posted any sexual depictions of minors. Nor used the server with intent to commit sex crimes.
I never asked for any reveling pictures and the unsolicited pictures from minors were deleted by the senders and not saved.
Many attribute malicious intent to my actions where there is no such intent despite all good and bad faith attempts to reveal my alleged maliciousness.
If a sex crime has occurred I could charge the women I have been speaking to for intent to commit sex crimes.
When I have consistently made clear my age they have consistently said that they are aware of the taboo nature of the relationship and insisted nonetheless.
I admit I continued to participate despite this being made clear. My intent has been and still is to establish and maintain connections with people.
This requires respecting how others want to conduct themselves. I cannot control what they will do and what expectations are created for me.
It does me no good to slander young whores so i wouldn't accuse them of wrongdoing. To accuse me of malicious intent ignores this benevolence.I wouldn't appeal the ban because I already left. Elaine and Grant asked me to go back.
I have acted in the most noble and honorable ways and ought to be praised for my greatness.
Ok Pedophile.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
I will hand you that you did not post any graphicβ¦
Genuinely impressive.
You can find that I have contradictions in my arguments but the meaningful refutation requires proving intent.
You have only claimed I have intent due to my actions. I argued that my actions imply another intent and you simply ignore that.
It's easy to "take someone down" when you make a bad faith attempt.
Your entire reason for being is a contradiction.
You are only the last person to enter a dogpile so you can feel like you're on the right side when you create some high effort post.
The whores thing was funny.
It's also really hard to speak on relevant things when I don't have anything specific brought against me. Just the broad accusation of wrong doing.
I can only assume that it's because that's the strongest argument against me. That there isn't anything except for what you insist must be wrong so you can oppose me.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Genuinely impressive.
You can find that I have contradictions in my arguments but the meaningful refutation requires proving intent.
You have only claimed I have intent due to my actions. I argued that my actions imply another intent and you simply ignore that.
It's easy to "take someone down" when you make a bad faith attempt.The whores thing was funny.
a. Your argument is not only contradictory, but there is no argument to be had. First, your original post is twofold: that,
- You did not post any sexual depictions of minors, and;
- You did not use the server with the intent of committing sex crimes.
b. I have demonstrated that the first mode of appeal is not true to the actual charges presented against you, nor is it in line with the Global Rules in their current state. Despite the wording of the rule being less than ideal, there is no question that it also forbids textually depicting minors in a sexual manner, and there are several witnesses to you having done this on the Discord server. The server is an extension of the Service, which means that any "conversations" you had on the server are also bound by the Global Rules, and so you broke Rule #3.
c. A "sex crime," in this case, is regarded as a demonstrable intent to meet with an underage person or persons for sex. You outright stated that you will make any platform of which you are part a "dating server," which is a medium by which you initiate romantic and/or sexual contact with a member of the community, and it has been shown in the General Chat that you did this with several underage girls on the Discord server.
d. You have previously argued to the effect of, and stating that, dating is for the eventual purpose of sexual contact and procreation. As such, your demonstrable intent to "date" underage girls, using the server as a communications medium, translates to an intent to have sex and procreate with them.
e. You have previously defended the act of having sexual relations with underage girls, and have gone on to defend them in the original post here. And so, it has been established that you are not opposed to hebephilia, that you are indeed a hebephile, and that your relations with the girls on the Discord server were an act of hebephilia.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
It's also really hard to speak on relevant things when I don't have anything specific brought against me. Just the broad accusation of wrong doing.
I can only assume that it's because that's the strongest argument against me. That there isn't anything except for what you insist must be wrong so you can oppose me.
You were banned from the Discord server for breaking two rules in particular. (The rules which you broke were made public on the Discord server as an explanation for why you were banned.) There is no broad accusation of "doing wrong."
The Arbitrator - go to this post
You were banned from the Discord server for breaking two rules in particular. (The rules which you broke were made public on the Discord server as an explanation for why you were banned.) There is no broad accusation of "doing wrong."
you actually do need to cite a specific grievance otherwise there's no opportunity for reform, just accusations.
I do want to make sure that I don't do something genuinely harmful.
Make a meaningful statement that can help me rather than trying to boost your confidence by trying to just win an argument everyone else has told you is impossible to lose.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
a. Your argument is not only contradictory, but there is no argument to be hadβ¦
None of these are accusations that have been brought against me for the purpose of the ban. If you have personal grievances they are between you and me.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
I'm literally Socrates being accused of corrupting the youth
The difference between you and Socrates is that you are not Socrates.
P.S: I had to change my profile color so that it wouldn't match yours, so thanks for ruining that color now.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
You outright stated that you will make any platform of which you are part a "dating server,"
That was a descriptive appraisal rather than a prescriptive one.
Your entire argument of intent requires that it is prescriptive.
Schizoid Man - go to this post
The difference between you and Socrates is that you are not Socrates.
TRUUUU everything else is exactly the same it's crazy. Same situation different man.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
TRUUUU everything else is exactly the same it's crazy. Same situation different man.
No, just no.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
That was a descriptive appraisal rather than a prescriptive one.
I will take it that you are referring to your own words, which only goes to further justify my claim that you did indeed break the rules and there is demonstrable intent with regard to sex crimes.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
you actually do need to cite a specific grievance otherwise there's no opportunity for reform, just accusations.
I do want to make sure that I don't do something genuinely harmful.
Make a meaningful statement that can help me rather than trying to boost your confidence by trying to just win an argument everyone else has told you is impossible to lose.
In my opinion, you have had too many chances. Winning an argument with you is only impossible to lose because of your inability to carry an argument, not because it is impossible to have an argument in good faith.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
None of these are accusations that have been brought against me for the purpose of the ban. If you have personal grievances they are between you and me.
How are they not directly relevant to the rules which you broke? The subject matter of my post revolves directly around the nature of the rules and how you did indeed violate them. This is nothing more than a contrary argument brought forth with absolutely no reasoning to justify it. How do you reason with this?
The Arbitrator - go to this post
I will take it that you are referring to your own words,
Yes I am referring to my own words. I recognized that the server became something I was not interested in and left.
If I continued to pursue access to the server there would be clear intent.
I did try to get back onto the server but only after people asked me to return because I had no other intent than to listen to my friends.
I stated in the first post here that I do not intend to return even now.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
How are they not directly relevant to the rules which you broke?
Just because you might believe it is relevant that doesn't mean that it is.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Yes I am referring to my own words. I recognized that the server became something I was not interested in and left.
If I continued to pursue access to the server there would be clear intent.
I did try to get back onto the server but only after people asked me to return because I had no other intent than to listen to my friends.
I stated in the first post here that I do not intend to return even now.
Regardless of whether or not you intend to return, you stated in your original post that you didn't actually break the rules with which you were charged upon being banned from the server, and this is false.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Just because you might believe it is relevant that doesn't mean that it is.
This is a non-sequitur. In fact, many of your responses are a non-sequitur. My personal convictions are irrelevant to the argument at hand, nor did I ever list my personal grievances other than by stating "you have had too many chances," which I made clear was my opinion and nothing more than that.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
Regardless of whether or not you intend to return, you stated in your original post that you didn't actually break the rules with which you were charged upon being banned from the server, and this is false.
On a tautological basis it's false but that's the point of claiming that there was an error.
Like yes if some authority says rules were broken then the rules have been broken.
If I believe that is wrong then I have to argue against the accusation.
It's absurd to assume that simply because someone said something bad happened it must dogmatically be believed.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
This is a non-sequitur. In fact, many of your responses are a non-sequitur.
to a blind man no words are written.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
My personal convictions are irrelevant to the argument at hand
Then you have no purpose for being and I invite you to resign.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
On a tautological basis it's false but that's the point of claiming that there was an error.
Like yes if some authority says rules were broken then the rules have been broken.
If I believe that is wrong then I have to argue against the accusation.
It's absurd to assume that simply because someone said something bad happened it must dogmatically be believed.
β¦except that your violation of the rules is not justified solely by the word of an authority figure. It can be demonstrated how you did indeed break the rules, and I believe that I have aptly demonstrated such. Furthermore, no part of my argument relies upon "someone said something bad happened" other than in where I appeal to the several people who were witness to your posts on the server. There are also screenshots of your posts on the server, so the character of the witnesses, or the fact that there are witnesses, is not the fundamental basis for my statement.
The Arbitrator - go to this post
Furthermore, no part of my argument relies upon "someone said something bad happened"
with a case in which no evidence is put forth that is all it could ever amount to
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread5-24 of 46 posts
- Last Next ›
Copyright Β© MMXXIV Esoteric Chat. Some rights reserved. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Β§ 230: All posts on this site are the sole responsibility of their posters.
6,260 posts - 1,398 conversations - 2 members online