equating no longer having spiteful mutants fuck with our media to wanting sexy kids in that media makes about as much sense as lumping any criticism of, say, the CIA, in with flat earth reptillian Q people.
in other words, it's a poisoning of the well, it's pedophillic kookification. "free speech means i get to jack it to kids".
let me tell you something: i don't really approve of all the people wanting women with big tits in every game and show out there. i think it's hedonistic, it depraves society and the character of the consumer, and it's basically adjacent to pornography, which does those former things tenfold.
but, i get it when people say that they want women with big tits. i'm heterosexual, i too like that, and between that and having 400kg negress muttoid abominations in my media, i'll take the japanese women with the big tits.
what i won't ever get is why you would seriously, as a supposedly sane and healthy person, want sexualized little kids in your media. it is only pedophiles that want that, and pedophiles are insane, unhealthy, and deserve the rope. it is that simple. waiting for one to actually abuse a kid when they tell you upfront they're a pedophile (by, for instance, saying they like drawings of sexy naked kids...) is just too stupid to be a natural occurrence among so-called free-thinkers.
Why, because it's a single point of failure that is relatively easy to defend. Note I said relatively. It till takes some doing. If you cede it suddenly you have the axiom "some drawings are not okay". Now the question is who decides which drawings are ok, where the line is, an half a dozen other fronts you now have to defend if you don't want things you enjoy censored or banned.
I instead, prefer to stick to the principle "it's a drawing, it's fiction, it's free speech, it should be defended." It's one point of failure. It's not always an easy point to defend, but if it goes down, the mess is yet unforseen.
now the question is who decides which actions are ok, where the line is, and half a dozen other fronts... if murder isn't okay, suddenly tomorrow walking backwards is a crime!
no, sorry. this logic doesn't compute, it's a dead-end, you end up standing for absolutely nothing and thus standing for everything, including the sickest of our world. you would quit this very logic the moment a man walked up to your toddler daughter and used his free speech to ask her to suck his dick, you'd punch his lights out and suddenly you're the one taking away free speech (after all, he just said some words, he didn't do anything...)
let's solve it this way: when things collapse and the people with the integrity to hate pedophilia (and a million other depraved things) come out on top while you're bickering about your naps and free speech, we can rope the shameless ones and you guys can just kinda slip by and conform, alright? it's a good deal.
I'm sorry if my principles are confusing to you. You are blatantly attacking a strawman. Please limit your argumentation to issues surrounding free speech. Right now you just sound unhinged and retarded.
i'm agreeing and amplifying, not attacking strawmen, my friend. all logic must be proven by being taken to its extremes: if policing any drawing is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong drawings, then policing anything is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong stuff. it's faulty logic, because we as practical reasonable people know that some things must be policed, including pedophiliac material.
as for the part where you would instantly give up free speech once it personally seriously offended you, i stand by that. keep your cool in front of guys free speeching towards your toddler to try to rape them and i'll cede, but we both know that it's not even possible.
equating no longer having spiteful mutants fuck with our media to wanting sexy kids in that media makes about as much sense as lumping any criticism of, say, the CIA, in with flat earth reptillian Q people.
in other words, it's a poisoning of the well, it's pedophillic kookification. "free speech means i get to jack it to kids".
let me tell you something: i don't really approve of all the people wanting women with big tits in every game and show out there. i think it's hedonistic, it depraves society and the character of the consumer, and it's basically adjacent to pornography, which does those former things tenfold.
but, i get it when people say that they want women with big tits. i'm heterosexual, i too like that, and between that and having 400kg negress muttoid abominations in my media, i'll take the japanese women with the big tits.
what i won't ever get is why you would seriously, as a supposedly sane and healthy person, want sexualized little kids in your media. it is only pedophiles that want that, and pedophiles are insane, unhealthy, and deserve the rope. it is that simple. waiting for one to actually abuse a kid when they tell you upfront they're a pedophile (by, for instance, saying they like drawings of sexy naked kids...) is just too stupid to be a natural occurrence among so-called free-thinkers.
Why, because it's a single point of failure that is relatively easy to defend. Note I said relatively. It till takes some doing. If you cede it suddenly you have the axiom "some drawings are not okay". Now the question is who decides which drawings are ok, where the line is, an half a dozen other fronts you now have to defend if you don't want things you enjoy censored or banned.
I instead, prefer to stick to the principle "it's a drawing, it's fiction, it's free speech, it should be defended." It's one point of failure. It's not always an easy point to defend, but if it goes down, the mess is yet unforseen.
now the question is who decides which actions are ok, where the line is, and half a dozen other fronts... if murder isn't okay, suddenly tomorrow walking backwards is a crime!
no, sorry. this logic doesn't compute, it's a dead-end, you end up standing for absolutely nothing and thus standing for everything, including the sickest of our world. you would quit this very logic the moment a man walked up to your toddler daughter and used his free speech to ask her to suck his dick, you'd punch his lights out and suddenly you're the one taking away free speech (after all, he just said some words, he didn't do anything...)
let's solve it this way: when things collapse and the people with the integrity to hate pedophilia (and a million other depraved things) come out on top while you're bickering about your naps and free speech, we can rope the shameless ones and you guys can just kinda slip by and conform, alright? it's a good deal.
I'm sorry if my principles are confusing to you. You are blatantly attacking a strawman. Please limit your argumentation to issues surrounding free speech. Right now you just sound unhinged and retarded.
i'm agreeing and amplifying, not attacking strawmen, my friend. all logic must be proven by being taken to its extremes: if policing any drawing is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong drawings, then policing anything is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong stuff. it's faulty logic, because we as practical reasonable people know that some things must be policed, including pedophiliac material.
as for the part where you would instantly give up free speech once it personally seriously offended you, i stand by that. keep your cool in front of guys free speeching towards your toddler to try to rape them and i'll cede, but we both know that it's not even possible.