Fvck censorship

Address rampant anoreceptive violence along with factors facilitating it. NOW! The clock is ticking as people and governments worldwide continue failing to address these matters. The number of violent criminals who can be punished only by violent means now is very large and continues to grow year after year. That means no matter what non-violent actions people take, bloodshed will remain necessary for justice to be served. For emphasis, the following is included in EVERY variant of TAKE ACTION, yet strangely some people continue to ignore it... Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: • A red herring logical fallacy is a tangential topic introduced as a distraction. One _very_ common example is trying to create an irrelevant discussion about a messenger/claimant (often by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions). • An ad hominem logical fallacy is an argument or implication that at least one supposed characteristic about a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. (Sometimes such characteristics potentially _can be_ relevant: for example, it may be appropriate to question a person's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy may apply in that situation.) • Misrepresentation, or introducing a distorted version of something that is presented, is another form of red herring. Attacking such a fabrication as a means to suggest refutal of what was actually presented constitutes a straw man logical fallacy. (A refutation with one or more vague, sweeping claims for which no proof is provided may be related. The burden of proof rests on the claimant, so offering constructive criticism is a good idea: clear and specific, with citations if applicable.)

Here are additional reference images.

> Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: > • A red herring logical fallacy is a tangential topic introduced as a distraction. One _very_ common example is trying to create an irrelevant discussion about a messenger/claimant (often by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions). > • An ad hominem logical fallacy is an argument or implication that at least one supposed characteristic about a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. (Sometimes such characteristics potentially _can be_ relevant: for example, it may be appropriate to question a person's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy may apply in that situation.) > [..] Purposely and repeatedly trying to divert attention away from anorectal anatomy and physiology, rampant anorectal abuse, associated traumatic risks, and an epidemic of ignorance and misinformation is suggestive of a nefarious agenda and/or psychopathy. Here is a work-in-progress addendum to that based on old posts of mine elsewhere (links will be provided on request): The matters that were covered, along with the voluminous amount of information from others, are so much more important than ANYTHING about one lone person trying to draw attention to them. Certainly pornography companies and their affiliates would be foolish not to take full advantage of psychopaths as deceitful "psyop" shi-lls [word filter] trying to "shoot the messenger" (along with using other tactics, e.g. trying to create a distraction) since pornography companies already take advantage of them for criminal abuse. I may also integrate material mentioning, or at least comparing "big porn" to, big tobacco and big oil. I quoted some interesting and relevant material in the past.

>>51967 > I quoted some interesting and relevant material in the past. "Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers. The tobacco industry did it when scientists linked cigarettes to cancer. The lead industry tried to discredit a scientist who found that lead exposure hurt children's cognitive abilities." hxxps://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/28/opinion/mann-climate-change-email-attacks "WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge ordered tobacco companies Thursday to admit they lied about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes and to warn consumers in advertisements and packaging that tobacco is addictive." "U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the industry conspired for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking and now must pay to help smokers kick the habit." hxxps://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17wire-tobacco.html "But tobacco companies had already hatched plans to reinvent their image — and marginalize their “enemies.” A review of Philip Morris and British American Tobacco internal documents published in Tobacco Control shows that the companies co-opted “harm reduction” from an Institute of Medicine report as a way to gain access to public health experts and cast themselves as socially responsible corporations. They sought to “challenge the credibility” of those advocating smoking cessation and “cause dissention” by exploiting vulnerabilities in the tobacco control movement. A Philip Morris executive argued in a formerly confidential document that recent tobacco reforms and legal victories might blind public health groups “to carefully orchestrated efforts by the tobacco industry and its allies to accelerate turf wars and exacerbate philosophical divisions.”" "Toward that end, they hired PR firms to create divisions among tobacco control experts and weaken public health policy by identifying moderates who might promote “safer” products while attacking the credibility of moralistic “extremists” who wouldn’t." hxxps://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16658358/vape-lobby-vaping-health-risks-nicotine-big-tobacco-marketing > create divisions "BAT [British-American Tobacco] documents suggest that it implied a highly active process of impression management. A key element of this was to create divisions within alliances favouring evidence-based tobacco control and reduce support for them amongst the general public (BAT 2000c, d, f, g, h, undated-b, undated-a)." "The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR." Journal of Business Ethics. 2013 Jan; 112(2): 283-299. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1250-5. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s10551-012-1250-5

>>51968 sci-hub.tw no longer works; that was copied and pasted from an old post of mine. sci-hub.se works. >Reddit /r/painal Other subreddits which obviously violate Reddit's policy* regarding violent content yet strangely still [as of 2021/10/31] persist despite that: /r/Pain /r/Roughanal /r/DegradingHoles * "Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people" https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151 [accessed 2021/10/31] >www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/36004351315 Relatively recent addition: "Note that health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader, also violates the Rule."