Here is a detailed post about how the South Korean Lolisho ban, posted for reference.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (101)
sorted by:
Are you such a moron that you are equating people who masturbate while looking at pictures of children and people who disagree with communist ideology?
Some things are good, and some things aren't. You don't have to be tolerant of the things that are not good to support the things that are good.
And before you give a gay commie comeback like "how do YOU know what things are good", I'll ask you a couple of simple yes or no questions.
Do you think masturbation while looking at images depicting children is a good thing? Do you think fictional depictions of children in sexual situations is a good thing?
If your answers are yes, then your discernment is broken and we can't have a conversation. If the answer is no then we are arguing about what degree of effort we should make in removing these specific bad things from our society.
Where is it going?
Banning all porn? Good.
Enforcement of public decency laws, shutting down most "adult oriented" businesses? Women not go out in public dressed like strippers? Good.
Please tell me the point along the slippery slope of your imagination that isn't a net positive for society as a whole.
the irony could not be richer, this coming from a man who wants to let people proliferate child pornography in the name of "freedom", a twisted post-modern concoction currently actually raping the children of his population...
So we should stop acting on good intentions because sometimes it turns out badly? What else can we use to determine our actions OTHER than our intentions?
The subversive idea that expression = speech started with, surprise, communists.
A retarded supreme court case decision ruled that showing commie flags couldn't be made illegal and basically the same reasoning was used to make all sorts of indecency and subversion legal.
Before that it was understood that speech meant words and only words is what the first amendment was meant to protect.
What are you talking about? That is how the US worked before 1960. Decency laws were enforced, indecent activities were forced outside of the public eye.
No puritanism is necessary. Roll back the retarded supreme court decisions about "expression" being protected by the first amendment. The degenerates can have new york and san francisco. The normal people can have towns that are decent to live and work in.