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:
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...
deliberate obtuseness is a tool of the people you claim to oppose, making you a fool.
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?
Not my counterpoint, but what I believe could be his counterpoint: The United States from July 4th, 1776 to the surrender of Japan in WW2, or if you discount that, July 4th, 1776 to the election of Woodrow Wilson.
You failed to answer the question about where your idea of "much further" is a bad thing.
You say "dont ban cartoon child porn" and your reason is "something else will be banned later". But you never say what that is.
I use the same slippery slope reasoning in saying we ban cartoon child porn because normalizing that will lead to to the acceptance of real child porn. But also because cartoon child porn is bad in itself.
Why is your reasoning correct and mine not?
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.