I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear.
You need to provide actual evidence that the game is what you claimed it was last week and the week before.
To recap, you claimed that the game normalised and glorified raping children, that it was a game about raping children, that it is fundamentally a paedophile simulator. You claim that it breaks the ethical rules set by Steam (who host the game) and you claim that dogbomb's video promotes raping children, contrary to YT's standards.
Your picture, which is not a screenshot from dogbomb's video, shows one line of dialogue presented with no supporting context. It describes a paedophile who has failed to rape a child.
One could show a scene from Family Guy where Herbert the pervert tries to groom or ensnare Chris and falsely claim that Family Guy is a show about a paedophile raping a boy.
One could present any scene from Brass Eye's Paedophile Special episode and deliberately mislead someone who doesn't know better that Brass Eye is a show dedicated to promoting paedophilia.
So you must be able to see how spamming your giant screenshot, which is not actually taken from dogbomb's video, is not reasonably convincing evidence in support of your argument.
Can you imagine a hypothetical reality in which the Phucker game merely involves a paedophile character in a similar way to Family Guy or Brass Eye? Do you actually accept that it is possible to address the issue of paedophilia in a way that does not normalise or glorify paedophilia? I ask these questions sincerely and with no mocking tone.
Under what circumstances can you imagine yourself admitting that you are wrong? What standard of proof would you require? Again, these are genuine questions and I do not intend to mock you.
How would you feel if someone repeatedly and systematically slandered you with 'paedo stuff'? This is an appeal to empathy and is not intended as a threat, nor is it intended to mock you in any way.
The onus is on you to prove that dogbomb, Youtube, Steam, and seemingly everybody else in the world, are all wrong. Your context-free screenshot taken from someone else's video calls your argument and character into question. I state this as a point of fact/procedure and not as an insult.
I would appreciate replies to my questions this time. I say this with a small degree of frustration and impatience, but with no intention to insult or harm you in any way.
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 4:38,
Share,
Reply)
There is a video game.
It contains dialogue describing a desire to rape a 12 year old child.
dogbomb made a video ahout that game.
He may have not known about that part of the game.
Do you dispute any of those statements?
(, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 4:51, Share, Reply)
He probably even reviewed games where the characters want to murder each other. I hear young people even shoot guns in those terrible video games!
(, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 7:36, Share, Reply)
There is a TV show, "Comic Strip Presents: Five Go Mad in Dorset".
It contains dialog about the desire to rape underage boys, and scenes of bestiality, incest, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia.
This video is available on the Comic Strip Youtube channel.
Isn't it possible that Phucker in the Woods is a parody, and not actually advocating paedophilia?
(
Invisible Wizard - 9th Level Pissant, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 7:51,
Share,
Reply)
Actually, isn't it possible that SockCooker is a parody, and not actually being so tedious about what is clearly a joke game?
Admit it - you're actually a Mr Penis sock puppet, aren't you?
(
Invisible Wizard - 9th Level Pissant, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 7:52,
Share,
Reply)
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 8:05,
Share,
Reply)
You didn't answer any of my questions.
I agree with you that there is indeed a video game.
It does indeed contain the dialogue that you spam here every week.
Dogbomb did indeed make a video of himself playing that game.
Dogbomb almost certainly did not know about the part of the game containing the one line of dialogue you keep spamming.
Do you accept that there is a mountain of evidence that you are fundamentally wrong about
- the nature of the game?
- the content of the game?
- how the game presents paedophilia?
Do you actually accept that it is possible to address the issue of paedophilia in a way that does not normalise or glorify paedophilia?
Under what circumstances can you imagine yourself admitting that you are wrong? What standard of proof would you require?
How would you feel if someone repeatedly and systematically slandered you with 'paedo stuff'?
The onus is on you to prove that dogbomb, Youtube, Steam, and seemingly everybody else in the world, are all wrong.
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Sat 4 Jul 2020, 15:44,
Share,
Reply)