 markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Karl Bode:But that is the excuse of all closet fascists, that art which bothers their delicate sensibilities should be banned or thrown in a pile and burned. So you defend child pornography - as long as it hides under the cover of being art? Stupid question, even by your standards 
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Legally, the picture was legal at the time it was taken. |
|
|
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | reply to 45612019
did you say CP?
 |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | reply to anonaaa
i thought there was no law in germany in 1976? |
|
| reply to markwp2001
said by markwp2001:Stupid question, even by your standards said by tubbynet:well, in that warped neo-con logic »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack 
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | You're the person who accused someone of defending child pornography, when they clearly weren't, scumbag.
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. |
|
| »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack
You are in a loop. Press reset. |
|
markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | No, just making sure you know what others think of you when you make such ridiculous accusations
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:But that is the excuse used by all child pornography purveyors - that it is art and should be ok. I don't find the image at all pornographic -- that is, it does not appeal at all to my prurient interest. How come it does to yours, I wonder??? |
|
| said by russotto:[ How come it does to yours, I wonder??? »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack |
|
2 edits | reply to Piggie
I actually have that album. I am a big Eric Clapton fan, especially with his days with Cream.
I consider it a piece of artwork, hardly pornographic at all. Mostly because I do not consider breasts in any stage of development part of female genitalia.
said by Piggie:Like I always said, if you like strict rules, there are still countries where you can immigrate to that will be glad to ban your problems. Amen to that, at least in this country I can choose what art is in bad taste or not, not the government.
Edit: Well not yet.
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. |
|
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Wikipedia should just delete the album cover from the article if indeed it is a naked child portrayed sexually, which would be against all international laws on child pornography. Delete the pic and the problem goes away. For someone who hasn't seen the image in question, you sure run your mouth.
Naked - yes.
Sexual? Maybe in your mind. 
--
All trolls are equal, but A troll is more equal than others. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Wow, someone just discovered logical fallacies, and is shoe-horning everything into one. Congrats. |
|
| said by Necronomikro:Wow, someone just discovered logical fallacies, and is shoe-horning everything into one. Congrats. It wouldn't be necessary if the default 1st choice of response of many posters wasn't personal attacks.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
d25m03pPremium
join:2007-12-26
Abbotsford, BC | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Just because puritan English speaking prudes think that a tastefully naked teenager girl is child porn doesn't mean that it is child porn in any other non-English speaking country or culture.
Why is it that English speaking countries call themselves enlightened, but are actually the biggest bigots (most of the time) throughout the known human universe? |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
2 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:So you defend child pornography - as long as it hides under the cover of being art? it wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't used a logical fallacy to characterize karl and what he was trying to say.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
yes, believe it or not, i passed freshman english too 
q.
edited to add quote clarification
--
those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I dont find it pornographic either. What did he say that was a personal attack? |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:So you defend child pornography - as long as it hides under the cover of being art? Nudity is not always pornography, and not all pornography involves nudity.
By your reasoning, any pictures of you as a child where you happen to be nude should be destroyed, as they are "child pornography" even if there is nothing sexual going on in the picture.
Face it, you conservatives are the ones with "sick" minds. You assign all this sexuality to things that have none. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:So you defend child pornography - as long as it hides under the cover of being art? Tell me TK, do you support child pornography? No? Then why do you support the blocking of child porn websites rather than having them shut down/used to catch pedophiles?
Logically you must be a pedophile because you're protecting them by hiding them from the public but not shutting them down.
Oh no! Ad-hominem attack'd! Hey, don't get mad at me, you started it!  |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | reply to fAcEtIOUs
You really don't get the "ad hominem" thing, do you?
Kinda makes it easy to understand why your ideas about art and pornography are so simplistic, though. |
|
