NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm oppressed and I love it.

I pretty much knew that 'bestiality' topic would be closed down. But don't see why. After all, it was perfectly thought out and rational. I didn't condone it, and I didn't say people should do it. I just think the law is hypocritical on the matter. I don't see why we can't have reasonable debate on the anomilies of law. Its not like we don't have debates on other aspects of illegal human sexuality, like that 'I love my sister' one...

I demand the Bestiality thread is unlocked! LONG LIVE FREE INTELLECTUAL DEBATE! END FASCIST CENSORSHIP!

Actually, don't really care either way, I just fancied kicking up a fuss. I love Sirrico really :P

Oh well, I won't moan more. I'll just go stand against this wall and await my heroic martyrdom :P

I know. We're all oppressed. My first Big Butts thread lasted an amazing 35 pages, though.

----------------------
Free your mind!

Whoopie! In before the lock! IBTL!

Er, wait, wrong thread. Never mind. Move along, nothing to see here.

Politics has gotten to the point where people are mentally oppressed in their daily lives through the media. Beauty is out your window and in your friends. Not in a screen connected to a cable. Free your mind indeed.

Founder TAJ

I get a kick out of being banned. Not that I go out intentionally to do it. My art teacher said I was 'sick' and then the school authorities banned my art-work from being on public display outside the art studio. And I was elected Head-Boy but banned from taking the position. HAHAHA I scare them. I didn't even stand for election, but they still banned me, because 'I bring shame on the school' by which they mean I'm not a racist homophobe like senior management.

I get a kick out of being banned. Not that I go out intentionally to do it. My art teacher said I was 'sick' and then the school authorities banned my art-work from being on public display outside the art studio. And I was elected Head-Boy but banned from taking the position. HAHAHA I scare them. I didn't even stand for election, but they still banned me, because 'I bring shame on the school' by which they mean I'm not a racist homophobe like senior management.

Hehe, keep 'em agitated, Pyr! :D

Sorry, but having sex with dead animals is a bit beyond the pale for this forum. :shock:

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Sorry, but having sex with dead animals is a bit beyond the pale for this forum. :shock:

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Why? I mean, you allowed that 'having sex with your sister' thread to go on (rightly). I wasn't endorsing it, just saying that to a logical liberal, it should be legal.

And having sex with something is wrong, but eating it isn't?

Like- necrophilia is wrong (fair enough) but cannibalism isn't?
If one's legal, the other should be.


I'm just saying the law is odd. And possibly hypocritical.

Why? I mean, you allowed that 'having sex with your sister' thread to go on (rightly). I wasn't endorsing it, just saying that to a logical liberal, it should be legal.

And having sex with something is wrong, but eating it isn't?

Like- necrophilia is wrong (fair enough) but cannibalism isn't?
If one's legal, the other should be.

I'm just saying the law is odd. And possibly hypocritical.
Well, I can't recall what may have happened before, but speaking for myself, at this present moment, I would have probably locked the having sex with your sister thread, depending, naturally, on the content. Cannibalism is a whole different thing. Bearing in mind the young age of some forum users, it is obvious that being exposed to a discussion of eating humans is going to offend less than a discussion of having sex with sisters or animals, dead or alive. It's just one of those social taboos, you know. Exposing children to the idea of cannibalism is one thing, exposing them to sexual content is another. Challenging the status quo tends to get people into trouble, if you know what I mean. C'mon. It should not be difficult to understand.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Challenging the status quo tends to get people into trouble, if you know what I mean. C'mon. It should not be difficult to understand.


That's what I do for a living. :wink:

-----------------------
Free your mind!

Why? I mean, you allowed that 'having sex with your sister' thread to go on (rightly). I wasn't endorsing it, just saying that to a logical liberal, it should be legal.

And having sex with something is wrong, but eating it isn't?

Like- necrophilia is wrong (fair enough) but cannibalism isn't?
If one's legal, the other should be.

I'm just saying the law is odd. And possibly hypocritical.
Well, I can't recall what may have happened before, but speaking for myself, at this present moment, I would have probably locked the having sex with your sister thread, depending, naturally, on the content. Cannibalism is a whole different thing. Bearing in mind the young age of some forum users, it is obvious that being exposed to a discussion of eating humans is going to offend less than a discussion of having sex with sisters or animals, dead or alive. It's just one of those social taboos, you know. Exposing children to the idea of cannibalism is one thing, exposing them to sexual content is another. Challenging the status quo tends to get people into trouble, if you know what I mean. C'mon. It should not be difficult to understand.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

But this forum is FULL of sexual content, as well as obscene language. I would also be suprised if any children did contribute.

The other point being that it had no obscene language in it, and was about legal anomalies, and was perfectly mature in its debate. I know why its been done, I just think it's an act of rather over-zealous censorship. It wasn't some gross childish piece.

Anyway, how long till this is locked? I'm not gonna get mad, I just think that authority banning reasoned rational debate is rather patriachal and over-bearing, not to mention patronising.

But this forum is FULL of sexual content, as well as obscene language. I would also be suprised if any children did contribute.
True, and I am sure many children do, but none of it is quite as stark as necrophilic bestiality. Streaking through a thread is, in comparison, pretty tame.

The other point being that it had no obscene language in it, and was about legal anomalies, and was perfectly mature in its debate. I know why its been done, I just think it's an act of rather over-zealous censorship. It wasn't some gross childish piece.
I understand that your piece was well written. But style is not the issue here, it is the content that is important. Whether it is written in good English or 1337, it was still inappropriate.

Anyway, how long till this is locked? I'm not gonna get mad, I just think that authority banning reasoned rational debate is rather patriachal and over-bearing, not to mention patronising.
Well, you are not too far off, as is often pointed out, this site is more paternalistic than democratic in nature. The Moderators are appointed and have a duty to protect people from some types of behaviour and content, and this falls well within those categories.

I will not lock this yet, but I will lock it and move it into the Moderation Forum once it has served its purpose.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Bah. Whatever. I'll just stay bitter. I don't care enough about the rights of animal 'lovers' to actually do anything, there are far more important things to get irritated with. I was just drawing attention to the percieved hypocrisy and injustice of British Law.

Now I have lost track of the argument. :?

But I feel that all the necessary points have been made.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Now I have lost track of the argument. :?

But I feel that all the necessary points have been made.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator


On both sides. Lets shake on it, sir.

*offers hand*

[Shakes hand]

In some way, aren't we all opressed. Just food for thought.

Sorry, but having sex with dead animals is a bit beyond the pale for this forum. :shock:

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Why? I mean, you allowed that 'having sex with your sister' thread to go on (rightly). I wasn't endorsing it, just saying that to a logical liberal, it should be legal.

And having sex with something is wrong, but eating it isn't?

Like- necrophilia is wrong (fair enough) but cannibalism isn't?
If one's legal, the other should be.


I'm just saying the law is odd. And possibly hypocritical.

Just a question, but how long has cannibalism been legal?

Sorry, but having sex with dead animals is a bit beyond the pale for this forum. :shock:

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Why? I mean, you allowed that 'having sex with your sister' thread to go on (rightly). I wasn't endorsing it, just saying that to a logical liberal, it should be legal.

And having sex with something is wrong, but eating it isn't?

Like- necrophilia is wrong (fair enough) but cannibalism isn't?
If one's legal, the other should be.


I'm just saying the law is odd. And possibly hypocritical.

Just a question, but how long has cannibalism been legal?


Its not. I'm saying if one is legal, the other should be. And as it's legal to eat dead animals, why is it not legal to have sex with them? Not that I like the idea, its gross, I just think it's hypocritical to have one legal and the other illegal.

Bertrand Russell still loves me :P


"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric."
Bertrand Russell