|
On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they.
Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime).
We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous.
|
On January 28 2010 11:19 Lexpar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they. Finally changed his tone huh? Terrific timing there.
I saw that too, but I didn't wanna double post...Forgot about editing though.
Lmao. The whole presentation of his argument changed. =\
|
Catch]22 trying to clean up his mess.
|
On January 28 2010 11:20 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they. Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime). We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous.
Thats not true, we don't just punish people for actually performing crimes, in many cases it's also a criminal offense to be believed of planning such crime, however we can't punish thoughts, partly because we can't prove them to begin with, also it would be ridiculous.
|
On January 28 2010 11:23 koreasilver wrote:
Catch]22 trying to clean up his mess.
I forgive him.
His hatred for pedophilia has prevented him from thinking rationally.
|
On January 28 2010 11:20 Conquest101 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 07:49 tirentu wrote:
Essentially, some of the more zealous people in charge of ratings and censorship in Australia are refusing publication of mainstream pornography featuring women with A-cup breasts, on the grounds that it encourages child pornography. Legally, they have some basis for this (quoting a linked article):
The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification. They are basing a NEW REGULATION on an EXISTING clause in the National Classification Code. They will now ban porn based on BREAST SIZE. A quote from one of the articles: “We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size”, Fiona said. “It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late”.
Wait...they can ban the image of someone acting as a child in any movie if a reasonable adult finds it offensive? Oh god, don't let catch22 decide what's reasonable!
|
On January 28 2010 11:24 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:20 Slow Motion wrote:On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they. Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime). We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous. Thats not true, we don't just punish people for actually performing crimes, in many cases it's also a criminal offense to be believed of planning such crime, however we can't punish thoughts, partly because we can't prove them to begin with, also it would be ridiculous.
Wow. Way to reverse 180 there?
|
On January 28 2010 11:21 ~OpZ~ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:19 Lexpar wrote:On January 28 2010 11:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:
[quote]
Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful.
The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they. Finally changed his tone huh? Terrific timing there. I saw that too, but I didn't wanna double post...Forgot about editing though. Lmao. The whole presentation of his argument changed. =\
My tone changed when I realized I believed I was arguing with people, not trolls linking pictures of 90 year old women and claiming they might be near-child pornography too.
|
Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime).
We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous.
You summed it up pretty well there.
It's ridiculous to try to control people's fantasies or sexual preferences. If there are people out there who wants to watch porn with an 18 year old in diapers pretending to be an infant I say go for it.
|
How are your flip flops coming along?
Good? That's good.
|
On January 28 2010 11:24 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:20 Slow Motion wrote:On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they. Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime). We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous. Thats not true, we don't just punish people for actually performing crimes, in many cases it's also a criminal offense to be believed of planning such crime, however we can't punish thoughts, partly because we can't prove them to begin with, also it would be ridiculous.
No, the planning of a crime is called attempt. There is a whole set of criminal law doctrines set around the subject of attempt. A major issue in attempt is where to draw the line between action and thought. If a planned illegal action is too close to mere thought, then the law tries to avoid punishing.
The whole point of attempt is to not allow people who are close to actually robbing a bank get away merely because the authorities caught them in time. Again, legal doctrines around attempt try very hard to draw lines that distinguish between action and thought.
|
On January 28 2010 11:26 nevz wrote:Show nested quote +
Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime).
We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous.
You summed it up pretty well there. It's ridiculous to try to control people's fantasies or sexual preferences. If there are people out there who wants to watch porn with an 18 year old in diapers pretending to be an infant I say go for it.
Untrue, I could imagine there would be far less interested in abusing children if there weren't actually any child pornography to get their imagination started.
|
On January 28 2010 11:28 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:26 nevz wrote:
Then this law is coming dangerously close to banning thoughts. When a pedo views a porno with a 15 year old, there is an actual child being harmed. When a pedo views a porno with an 18 year old depicting a 15 year old, there is no actual harm to a child. The pedo is using his imagination (imagining what would be a crime).
We don't punish people for what's in their minds, but for doing actual harm to others. You think a pedo, who realizes his or her problem, and never hurts a child should be punished? That's completely pointless and ridiculous.
You summed it up pretty well there. It's ridiculous to try to control people's fantasies or sexual preferences. If there are people out there who wants to watch porn with an 18 year old in diapers pretending to be an infant I say go for it. Untrue, I could imagine there would be far less interested in abusing children if there weren't actually any child pornography to get their imagination started.
"could imagine"
I could imagine you not posting and all pedophiles would spontaneously combust at once.
|
And another note on attempt, the law deals with attempts to commit an actual crime. What you are concerned with here is porn with underage women or a pedo who will actually hurt children.
Watching pornos with adult women who portray children is not an attempt to watch porn with actual children, or an attempt to hurt children. In fact, you could argue that watching these pornos are a way for pedos to manage their problems, and keep their perversion in the realm of imagination.
And if you really are concerned about these pornos inciting pedos to hurt children, you must also be in favor of banning films and movies that portray violence, which desensitizes people.
|
On January 28 2010 11:15 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:11 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:11 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:08 Foucault wrote:On January 28 2010 11:04 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 11:02 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 11:00 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:54 Foucault wrote:
I think the issue here is that Catch]22 isn't that interested in the fact that millions of women will feel inferior about this.
How about banning small dicks from porn? Its not that I'm uninterested in it, Its that its insignificant. One of my ex-girlfriends was a saint, she used to volounteer at some sort of shelter downtown for women who had been abused etc. And looking into the eyes of these girls, knowing the fact that their life might be ruined forever because they were the object of child pornography or abused for similar reasons, it was painful. The pain these girls feel, many of them are essentially dead already, they will never love, trust or be happy together with a man again because of this. This pain goes faaar beyond what a few small-breasted women will feel when they know men cant fap to girls-who-look-16-but-aint anymore. Ok, you didn't learn to read yet. This discriminates against women who are performing in adult cinematography, with themes that aren't designed to be "under aged". Ok? THIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN FOR HAVING SMALL BREAST. God damnit. No, women who look incredibly young, if you read the article about the law, you would know that it wouldnt stop women who look old but have small breast, only the ones whos age is questionable. Yes, but ALL women, regardless of age who have small breasts are obviously affected by this law. Read the article about the law, please. Read what everyone is saying about you please, maybe you can understand if you actually read. Well, people have been arguing this whole time about something entirely different than what the law does. The law prevents the type of movie that is specifically designed to emulate sex with underage girls. If the point of the video is not this, its not touched. 24 year old girls with small breasts who just want to do regular porn are not at all affected, and neither should they.
and u misunderstand how these kind of laws are interpreted and enforced in australia. seriously quit the bs! this is more about a government censoring whatever they like with no oversight or accountability. hell they dont even have to tell us what they will be filtering its a secret.
i"d make better posts but on the mobile atm. u get the idea, prob not.
|
|
|
I like how catch started to understand the problem here, and then he went back to not understanding it, like a car almost making it up a hill.
|
On January 28 2010 11:07 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 10:52 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 10:49 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:48 Lexpar wrote:
I believe the law prevents women with a breast size of A- from performing in pornography. That sounds like it discriminates against women to me. :S I guess you're just gonna have to cry yourself to sleep knowing that you cant imagine that that girl might actually have been 16 instead of 18 anymore. Women, of adult age, should be allowed to participate in pornography if they wish, no matter their breast size, or whatever. No women should be allowed to participate in such a immoral and debasing industry. Props to Australia for being morally conscious. etc. etc.
ppl with this viewpoint are the reason why we are getting a filter with a very possible negative impact on internet speed on our already slow connections. go be moral elsewhere without punishing the rest of us!
|
On January 28 2010 11:41 Khul Sadukar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 11:07 Saracen wrote:On January 28 2010 10:52 PanN wrote:On January 28 2010 10:49 Catch]22 wrote:On January 28 2010 10:48 Lexpar wrote:
I believe the law prevents women with a breast size of A- from performing in pornography. That sounds like it discriminates against women to me. :S I guess you're just gonna have to cry yourself to sleep knowing that you cant imagine that that girl might actually have been 16 instead of 18 anymore. Women, of adult age, should be allowed to participate in pornography if they wish, no matter their breast size, or whatever. No women should be allowed to participate in such a immoral and debasing industry. Props to Australia for being morally conscious. etc. etc. ppl with this viewpoint are the reason why we are getting a filter with a very possible negative impact on internet speed on our already slow connections. go be moral elsewhere without punishing the rest of us!
I don't know if you are serious or not, but he certainly wasn't.
|
On January 28 2010 11:39 PanN wrote:
I like how catch started to understand the problem here, and then he went back to not understanding it, like a car almost making it up a hill.
You can tell how messed up this guy is. He actually thinks that the only reason we don't punish people for having thoughts about taking illegal actions is because you can't prove they had those thoughts, when the real reason is that non-oppressive governments specifically try hard not to punish mere thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.blavish.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Flip%20Flop%20Mop.jpg)
