Mark Zuckerberg, why did you lock me out of Facebook? "I wanted to make it secure for all patrons who were survivors" And you believe they cannot speak for themselves, correct? "Yep" So I will charge you now with anti-survivor entitlement leading to abuse by way of offense perceived, and you are as good as banned anyway once I get new technology, meaning a new computer and phone.
By trying to dig yourself out of a hole, you dug yourself deeper, you depraved adult fornicator and sexually entitled adult.
You got your lunch, now be fair and let me back on your site, as I was implying that pornography of any kind is unlawful under my Christian beliefs to post, thus nothing was intended as pornography. How else do you prove the chaste intent of your posts in court? Pro-social accusation. It might be no fault, but you have to react sometimes to fornication and pornography charges when something subjective is charged as pornography, such as attachment parenting literature.
We survivors can speak for ourselves. We aren't dead yet. Normally, with this sort of investigation, there is pornography, and the police give you a second chance by telling you to delete the page. If there was no pornography by now, there never will be any. If I were to have posted that kind of crap, I would have deserved the apparent ban that is being imposed on me. I just post pornography in the eyes of peacekeepers - its called textual scatalogia. I don't REALLY post pornography, as that is not my intent, and I seriously apologize if anyone perceived any of my work as pornography.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.