I'm beginning to think that you believe your argument the last time actually had merit and prevailed. It didn't. Your 'gotcha' about national security was left out there as a 'winner' but you completely failed to support it.
I don't think you really thought about your question either.
Really? A video (made using technology that wasn't available when the 1st Amendment was written) was posted on the internet (new technology) to espouse the claim that only technology available when the 2nd Amendment was written should be protected by that Amendment.
The utter cognitive dissonance in that is priceless - that you can't see it is hilarious.
What's ironic about your question is that you honestly think you are somehow framing me into a certain answer when the theme of the question itself betrays ignorance and sadly puts you in a corner. Freedom of speech has changed a great deal in this country since the first amendment was written. Now, if I were you, GD, I'd take a great amount of glee in asking you why you support child pornography. After all, it's prior restraint, right? And flies in the face of the first amendment.
But I don't because your rigidity in constitutional matters is far more nauseating. And you're just being a dick about this argument because you want to somehow "win." So why don't you knock off the false equivalences and framed questions and admit that times have changed and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean Stalin is coming to get your guns
And here I thought child pr0n was banned because you can't make it without abusing a child. Or are you saying outlawing child abuse is "prior restraint"? Even if that's got a gray area, especially now with improving technology, of computer-generated "fake" perversions. Even though I think anyone making/selling/buying "fake" child pr0n is a sick fuck, I'm not quite so sure that there's a reason to ban that since no one below the age of consent is actually involved. I don't really buy the idea that it promotes actual molestations, because the same arguments were made against regular adult pr0n, and have proven to be unfounded.
6 comments:
Media has changed, shouldn't laws about speech change with them?
Sure you want to go down that path again, GD? Actually, I don't think you really thought about your question either.
That's the second time you've asked that.
I'm beginning to think that you believe your argument the last time actually had merit and prevailed. It didn't. Your 'gotcha' about national security was left out there as a 'winner' but you completely failed to support it.
I don't think you really thought about your question either.
Really? A video (made using technology that wasn't available when the 1st Amendment was written) was posted on the internet (new technology) to espouse the claim that only technology available when the 2nd Amendment was written should be protected by that Amendment.
The utter cognitive dissonance in that is priceless - that you can't see it is hilarious.
What's ironic about your question is that you honestly think you are somehow framing me into a certain answer when the theme of the question itself betrays ignorance and sadly puts you in a corner. Freedom of speech has changed a great deal in this country since the first amendment was written. Now, if I were you, GD, I'd take a great amount of glee in asking you why you support child pornography. After all, it's prior restraint, right? And flies in the face of the first amendment.
But I don't because your rigidity in constitutional matters is far more nauseating. And you're just being a dick about this argument because you want to somehow "win." So why don't you knock off the false equivalences and framed questions and admit that times have changed and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean Stalin is coming to get your guns
And here I thought child pr0n was banned because you can't make it without abusing a child. Or are you saying outlawing child abuse is "prior restraint"? Even if that's got a gray area, especially now with improving technology, of computer-generated "fake" perversions. Even though I think anyone making/selling/buying "fake" child pr0n is a sick fuck, I'm not quite so sure that there's a reason to ban that since no one below the age of consent is actually involved. I don't really buy the idea that it promotes actual molestations, because the same arguments were made against regular adult pr0n, and have proven to be unfounded.
Larry said it.
Losing argument Mark - you need to look deeper.
Post a Comment