• plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I’m not defending child sexual material. I’m saying that what was described was not child sexual material. It obviously isn’t unless you’re some weirdo Puritan on a crusade.

    But it is. It’s not puritan to not want children in a sexualized or naked setting. The horror or creep aspect doesn’t matter. It’s just not an acceptable narrative. And it’s fucking creepy as shit seeing you defend it so vehemently.

    obviously more interested in a witch hunt than the truth anyway.

    Says the one ignoring facts and saying “we don’t know” and claiming that’s the truth? What truth is “we don’t know”? Fallacies to hide behind, there’s no truth in not knowing. The facts are, they changed their game, which made it acceptable AFTER. So it had to have been offending before. And that was all storefronts, not just valve. So that argument you’re using doesn’t even work.

    • Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s not puritan to not want children in a sexualized or naked setting

      No, but it’s Puritan to take something that isn’t and assert that it is.

      And it’s fucking crappy as shit seeing you defend it so vehemently.

      And like every other puritan you accuse and insult reasonable people who don’t want Puritans to misrepresent media and decide what everyone else gets to consume.

      • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        No, but it’s Puritan to take something that isn’t and assert that it is.

        You’ve supplied no “truth” or “evidence” to the contrary, so the only defence you’re saying is, “naked kids are okay”. Which it isn’t. That’s the issue being addressed.

        And like every other puritan you accuse and insult reasonable people who don’t want Puritans to misrepresent media and decide what everyone else gets to consume.

        Says the one rolling their eyes at someone trying to point out your incorrect assumptions, information and views?

        It’s not black and white, just because someone doesn’t accept child sexualism or nudity in media, doesn’t make them a puritan.

        In case it hasn’t been made obvious yet, you are not the reasonable person here, a reasonable person doesn’t want naked kiddos in the media lmfao. That’s the nail right there. You started with the insults, so don’t play the high ground. You’re just a horrible person.

        Keep defending wanting naked kiddos in media! You keep trying to focus on the term sexual, that’s not the only concern being addressed with.

          • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Yes. They had to clarify that every character is “obviously” over the age of 20.

            That’s not a claim that gets made if there was no way to make the mistake.

            Are you just willingly ignoring all the facts and details right in front of you to spin this fantasy of yours?

            And you are only using the current build, your information isn’t even applicable to the topic.

            My copy doesn’t have naked kids, so it never did.

            That’s your defense, when the game was stated to have been banned for… you guessed it! But are going to ignore it.

            Do you just lack basic reading comprehension skills? Or do you not know how to critically think for yourself?

            • Feyd@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              You’re actually just wrong. The naked person in that scene was the horse/human. Never the not being treated as a horse person.

              • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                According to the dev…? Did he provide proof? Nope. Just deflects blame to valve instead. What a dev….

                You can’t say the boogeyman doesn’t exist, then use the same for your defence. There was material that broke rules. They changed it to be acceptable.

                Literally the one thing you can’t do is child sexual material. Read between the fucking lines lmfao.

                • Feyd@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Yeah took the wind out of your sails finding out your outrage was based on poor reading comprehension didn’t it. No apology for me?

                  • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 days ago

                    Why would I apologize to a pedo defender who lacks basic reading comprehension skills lmfao. How deluded are you?

                    Do you even know what the term means? I just blew your defense apart by using your own, and you say I deflated my sails? Fucking lmfao.

                    If my defense fails, so does yours, because it’s the same as yours you mook.