I found this channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GULvtVCe-I and I’m going to post the screenshots below. The video has links in the description which prove the screenshots are genuine. For clarification, the 20 year old knew the 14 year old was 14 prior to these comments being made.
T, the person with the green avatar and geometric name, says that the pedophile allegation is slander, because people can’t speak for another person’s intentions and people are interpreting those comments the wrong way.
I’m trying to get an unbiased judgment of these comments here. is there any other way those comments T posted could be interpreted?
What she is requesting is sexual depictions of a minor. Depending on how it’s drawn that is probably illegal in the US.
She could request anything, but she requests a sexual depictions of a minor, even though she probably knows that it’s most likely illegal.
If it’s unethical, there’s room for argument I guess. But this goes further, and usually if something violates a law, in most cases we’re past the ethical debate and straight into criminal prosecution territory.
TL;DR there’s no other way to view this.
So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.
Funny you mention legality. The person the OP is slandering (as in it’s not true enough to be considerable), was actually taken to court and acquitted in all instances, because the people trying to target her with slander fall apart under due process. She wasn’t depicting anything NSFW about minors, she just used wording that missed a beat.
TL;DR Yes, there are absolutely other ways to view this, especially when you did not question the defense. Gullible lemmings, I see why this place is Communist now.
How am I slandering by posting the screenshots (there’s links proving they’re unedited deviantart.com/comments/18/2617047/4886760940
deviantart.com/comments/18/2612773/4879845792 ) and asking if there’s any other way they can be interpreted?
Mind me asking which other way these comments could be interpreted? You seem insistent enough on this topic that you’ve spammed the thread.
Three reasons for that.
I’ve been in tune to this for a while.
You didn’t answer my question.
I answered this question. You then edited it to include another one.
The person above Triagonal asks for NSFW material. It’s straight up dark web material. Triagonal simply asks for a story about a day out.
This is how the two of you sound right now.
What about this one?
And this one?
The first one is admittedly vague. She says it’s a reference to the steamed hams meme. She was inviting him over to an unforgettable luncheon.
The second one I don’t know. She might not understand shipping. Mike and Brian didn’t.
I don’t remember “steamy goodness” being a quote from the Steamed Hams meme. Where does Seymour or Skinner say that?
Hello. I don’t think ShiverMeTimbers is participating in good faith and may be associated with the Triagonal person. They’ve also spammed the same exact message on the thread. They accused me of being two other people, and their proof was “you said you did but deleted the comment”. I only have 2 deleted comments on my entire profile and I undeleted them. They straight up lied about something I never said to spite me, thinking I wasn’t able to undelete comments (which proved I didn’t say what ShiverMeTimbers said I said): https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/22904406/13319893
Maybe it’s worth acknowledging you’re an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.
Fyi, call me Lenny/Leni/shinigamiookamiryuu is the “Triagonal” person.