Nostr Web Client

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq4pa5q2kqs8ygfxuat02w88ezsle9wzwnu0meu7z2785t8rl0hhcsahhd4m nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq4t9nddf7zz563mxrl4fcm8gsetzuedfeq0xyez59sk9p62j74k9qlmu5mv i'm polarizing lol, what questions specifically are you referring to? i may have missed them

Scoundrel 7mo ago

Hmm, it's possible the Nostr<->ActivityPub bridge ate my @ 's.

In your profile you say that anyone who believes sex with children is wrong regardless of the cultural context is an anti-c[ontact] fundamentalist and an anti and should be treated like an anti.

I was wondering whether that position would apply to me. I believe that it's wrong for adults to have sex with children because children are bimbos and losers and I believe it's stupid for children to have sex with adults because adults are all used up and unattractive. My reasoning is based solely on the people themselves, and so it seems to me that I am applying it regardless of the laws, society, or cultural context.

What do you think? Am I an anti-contact fundamentalist? Am I an anti? How should I be treated? Thanks.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sofia 7mo ago

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq4pa5q2kqs8ygfxuat02w88ezsle9wzwnu0meu7z2785t8rl0hhcsahhd4m oh that lol, it just seemed like an obvious joke rather than an actual question (like, as obvious as a joke could possibly be)

in any case, if it really isn't a joke, the answer to that can be obtained by just reading the bio section you're talking about to begin with

i word nearly everything i say very meticulously (for example, that "nearly everything" rather than "everything" exists primarily as a CYA clause), so you don't have to guess what i mean, what i say is nearly always what i actually mean

Scoundrel 7mo ago

I enjoy presenting things in a funny way, but those are my genuine beliefs. Is there something inconsistent or wrong in my beliefs that's leading you to think they are a joke?

I read your bio section very carefully. The reason I'm asking you if you stand by your claims is because the conclusions in my particular case seem very odd. Your bio seems to imply that I am an anti-contact fundamentalist even though my anti-contact beliefs aren't fundamental and only apply because of specific reasoning. Your bio also seems to imply that I am an anti even though I am a content pedophile and believe that children are objectively hot.

Am I reading your bio section properly? Are you trying to use terms like "fundamentalist" or "anti" the same way I have heard other people using those terms?