1 edit | reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child 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. |
|
|
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit | 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? |
|
| Yeah TK. AND the murder of puppies. |
|
 Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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? Yeah. Child pornography is awesome.
Socialism is great too. Free socialist CP for all! |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to Karl Bode
said by ThrowDemsOut:So you defend child pornography - as long as it hides under the cover of being art? said by Karl Bode:Yeah TK. AND the murder of puppies. well, in that warped neo-con logic, you are either with him (and the *good* side), or with the terrorists (or whichever group is *not* the good side).
q. |
|
 markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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 Xizer
did you say CP?
 |
|
ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | 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. |
|
ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | »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. |
|
1 edit | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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 ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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 ThrowDemsOut
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. |
|
