TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child 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? | |
|
 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child Yeah TK. AND the murder of puppies. | |
|
 | |
Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
| said by TKJunkMail :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! | |
|
| 
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs: | Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child did you say CP?
 | |
|
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
| said by TKJunkMail :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. | |
|
| |
| |
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child You're the person who accused someone of defending child pornography, when they clearly weren't, scumbag.
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
| Re: Action justified if naked person on album cover is a child No, just making sure you know what others think of you when you make such ridiculous accusations
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
|
| | | | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| 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. | |
|
33591094
join:2002-11-19
Canada
1 edit | said by TKJunkMail :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
antarctica
| said by TKJunkMail :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
antarctica
| said by TKJunkMail :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!  | |
|
|
|
|
·
·