Edit, I fricked up the original video and accidentally uploaded the version I saved without audio:

https://rdrama.net/videos/1726442246293263.mp4 - fixed with audio

Video transcript:

Unjust WPD Ban.

this video is in reply to the 10th Man on watch people die the context of this is that I have been banned for libertarian which basically means I'm Banning you because I don't like you I guess considering I've broken no rule and no one is willing to explain how I have broken any rule I've tried to reason with these people what I've done is I've made a slew of messages combating misinformation and comments based on empirical findings and comments made purely for academic purposes in spreading knowledge and understanding on this topic so for an example this is the comment which got me banned you can read that if you like and obviously I've made not of the comments and people have responded in Anger obviously pertaining to my um messaging the moderators um not one person was willing to explain to me what I said how what I said was sexualization because that is the rule they try to bend in justifying my ban um I wrote the definition of sexualization here and you can read that and it really isn't sexual sexualization of Min is any more than talking about puberty genitals or just s*x said is really it's in it's purely for education and purposes it's not to satisfy any libertarianphilic desire purely there is no sexual objectification anywhere it really is just combating misinformation and obviously they have responded with no care like always but the comments which really annoyed me was they message by 10 man nothing I said was a threat of violence a threat to commit a crime the way that your analogy suggests nor was anything I said a joke considering I quite literally cited my sources so I really don't know how to respond to this considering he hasn't addressed any of my concerns and of course he thinks it was a joke anything that doesn't demonize libertarianism is a joke then break a new rule

WPD post with additional info:

https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/meta/post/221210/a-man-who-killed-three-of

Previous @Dramamine post:

>British schizo shoots and kills 3 of his family members, states it is because his family made the wrong choice while playing the teltale games Walking Dead video game.

https://rdrama.net/post/300570/british-schizo-shoots-and-kills-3

An 18-year-old man has been charged with murder after three people were found dead in a tower block in Luton on Friday.

Nicholas Prosper, of Leabank, was arrested on Friday morning after the bodies of a woman and two teenagers were discovered at a flat.

(...)

Juliana Prosper, 48, Kyle Prosper, 16, and Giselle Prosper, 13

Comment he was originally banned for:

To avoid inevitable rhetoric and misrepresentation surrounding the legal terms of 'consent' and 'r*pe' I'm going to use involuntary and voluntary s*x instead. I don't support involuntary s*x with children; I do, however see no issue with voluntary ch-adult s*x, stemming from empirical findings (Areola et al 2008; Stanley et al 2004; Rind, B, 2001; Rind B, 2021.)

Studies purporting harmful, long term effects and pervasiveness due to ch-adult s*x, often use clinical sampling which don't represent the general population of children legally sexually abused. Off the top of my head: clinical samples are vast majority females, and only consist of cases considered serious enough to report, in contrary to the GP, where a large quantity of instances go unreported due to lack of perceived seriousness Lahtinen, H., et al., (2018). In addition these studies count for no confounding variables.

What's interesting, is when the definition of CSA was made overinclusive, for college samples, the way of these clinical studies, upon controlling for confounds (Family environment, retrospective perception of willingness) the effect size became almost non existent, with the little remaining values being attributed to unaccounted for variables (Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P, 1997; Rind et al. 1998; Skaug, E, 2022; Ulrich et al, 2008.) With the idea of 'informed consent' as necessary prerequisite to avoid harm being utterly unfounded; again, supported by the Kinsley reports where the retrospective recall rates of positive, neutral and negative experiences being almost synonymous for ch-adult and adult-adult s*x.

I'm willing to discuss any criticisms or issues you may have with the rind study.

The conversation he had with mods:

Nicholas Prosper:

I got banned for "libertarian" which isn't a stated rule. I didn't post anything illegal under US law, nor did I sexualize any minor.

@FishyMan420:

"Do not sexualize minors."

You:

"I do, however see no issue with voluntary ch-adult s*x"

We don't care why you think that way. We have our own rules that go beyond US law.

Nicholas Prosper:

"To sexualize something or someone means to make them sexual or consider them in a sexual way."

Everything I've said has been based in reality, on empirical findings, and is for purely academic purposes. Discussion of studies pertaining to the reality of s*x and minors, isn't sexualisation any more than discussing periods, or puberty is. You only detach the act of s*x from minors because it's arbritarily considered taboo and a big no no. This is akin to accusing someone of sexualizing dogs for discussion information related to breeding, and heat patterns.

Princess_Crocodile:

I will unban you if you submit a video of your suicide.

Nicholas Prosper:

Are all the mods here r-slurred?

@FishyMan420:

We might be r-slurred, but we don't advocate fricking children under any circumstances.

Nicholas Prosper:

That's not an explicitly stated rule. If you want to make a rule against any libertarianism, go ahead. My issue, however, is I didn't break any stated rule.

"Sexualization (sexualisation in Commonwealth English) is the emphasis of the sexual nature of a behavior or person. Sexualization is linked to sexual objectification, treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire." — which is solely where the negative connotations of sexualisation stems from, and why it's considered wrong; it's this part which is why it's often made to be a rule.

When discussing s*x in relation to children, the focus isn't sexual objectification, the focus is, as I said, to promote understanding and knowledge on the topic. I didn't sexually objectify anyone, anything, or say anything self-serviing to purely

any libertarianphilic desire. If we're to go by sexualisation as simply looking at something in a sexual context, then, again, discussions related to the sexual behaviour of children, including masturbation, sexual orientation, puberty, periods, and genitals would be considered sexualisation of children even in an academic context, yet no one is against s*x-ed. If what I said is 'sexualizing children' then discussing science related to homosexuality and homosexual s*x is "sexualizing gay people". This does not follow.

@FishyMan420:

To sum it up, this guy was bullied/banned fairly quickly some time ago for being a fricking libertarian freak arguing about "consensual" s*x with children on a gorestrag website no less. Despite the best efforts of based mops including @FishyMan420, @The10thMan and Croc, he unfortunately failed to take the dose of reality given to him or at least just fricking kill himself.

On a lighter note, his most hated user was our resident wholesome poster @OnlyCats so props to onlycats as well

Other misc findings:

!wpd !metashit !jannies