I made some contribution on their pedophilia article (a rather moderate one, not even chimping out) and I got inmediately perma-banned, with the ability to create a new account disabled, by a mod there (a fucking feminazi one, of course, and a major SJW retard no less). She goes by the name EK and seems like your average r/socialism sack of shit.
I think it was mostly because of my username and not because of the topic as such. So much for those faggots being "rational".
Other urls found in this thread:
amourangels.com
instagram.com
psychologytoday.com
twitter.com
You do realize all Rational Wiki articles are bitchy hit pieces made by vapid centrists right? Even the one's where they're right and should have the right to be as openly insulting as possible they're still extremely ostentatious, what could have possibly made you think posting there was a good idea?
Also sage because this isn't leftist discussion.
Trying to add some common sense to their idiotic article? It's part of the wikimedia and I made a topic in their talk page, not the main article on pedophilia, which I don't even condone but certainly understand why some people have said sexual orientation.
The article isn't leftist discussion, but their overall stance supposedly is (center-left, according to media bias/fact check). You'd expect they'd man up (or woman up in the femishit case) and take criticism like mature people.
user I–
But the problem is that they clearly don't want any discussion.
OP is a colossal cockgargling faglord, talks like a space alien ("humans"), and deserves a permaban from life. But as long as there's a thread on Rational Wiki, everyone should know that the site actually used to be good when it was just a normal New Atheist fedora rack.
Then the SJW cancer of "Atheim+" metastasized, seizing control over a number of New Atheist entities such as Rational Wiki, and the rest of the New Atheists coalesced around The Slymepit.
As a result, you'll probably notice that articles on subjects SJWs are interested in are completely contaminated, while articles on things about skepticism and atheism uninteresting to SJWs are abandoned and still largely intact.
Ironically, A+ basically died by the time GG rolled around, and the infestation on RW is pretty much its only testament, largely just a mirror of SJWiki (yes, that is an actual site).
Which makes them incredibly hypocritical, when they precisely attack conservapedia on doing the exact same thing.
Also, it's funny how advocating sending M R A faggots to deathcamps is A-ok, but an ironic username isn't. That's the state of the mainstream left.
I merely tried to use their language, to actually start a rational discussion on the topic. Also, focus on this topic, fag.
1) It's a stupid nonissue nobody IRL GAF about the status quo of aside from outrage mongers and pedos
2) Anyone who uses any term other than pedo is either a pedo or a pretentious airhead
3) Your analysis is nonsensical hairsplitting autism that fails to distinguish between an arbitrary fetish for age and an arbitrary fetish for youth
Oh, and:
0) Making a fuss about it, aside from fairly tame stuff like Romeo laws and false accusations, is terrible optics for the men's movement.
Also op upon reading your article sorry for jumping in without doing so no, some pedos from experience I know are solely attracted to girls just for age even when they're ugly, or look terrible. It's not just body type.