Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/7389476.stm



I get where she's coming from but the whole thing seems more than a little bit overboard. Of course, any opinion of hers should have been thrown out the moment she said: "Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others."

There's similar ideas within feminist movements who see porn as an evil toward women which should be censored. The fact remains that participation in porn, however violent, is voluntary, the women generally get paid far more, and (most importantly) you don't treat the cause by censoring such things. Any form of media can have a dark side, but it's not the job of legislature to ban freedoms on the basis of a few people demented enough to commit heinous acts that mirror them. I'd imagine that the dude in question was messed up enough that if it wasn't porn, he would've found a destructive outlet somewhere else.

Such measures would be applying band-aids to severed limbs, not seeing the problem for what it truly is but simply banning the symptoms rather than working toward true awareness and change....and stripping away our freedoms in the process.

Fully against.

I'm not a fan of the idea that you can get in trouble for simply watching something; not even participated, just watching. I think it's often a very dangerous way to go about limiting things. And while I understand it being that way for certain things, like child pornography, I don't think it should be expanded.

And yes, as said above, the fact is that it is voluntary, and if people are forcing women to be in it by trafficking them, then that's a problem with trafficking and not the pornography.

I am not a porn person...but this type of shit (the infringement of freedoms) pisses me off. If some schmoe likes to bate to a bound chick getting hit with a switch, who cares. The lady gets paid for it, the shcmoe gets his jollies, and no one gets hurt...well...sort of.

edit-

Originally posted by BackFire
And yes, as said above, the fact is that it is voluntary, and if people are forcing women to be in it by trafficking them, then that's a problem with trafficking and not the pornography.

ditto

'tis bullshit.

Moral crusaders once more forcing that their silly believes be imposed on every person on this planet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
'tis bullshit.

Moral crusaders once more forcing that their silly believes be imposed on every person on this planet.

"Under the new law, pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence which is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals is outlawed."

This made you cry, right?

It is bullshit though, the people involved are adults and willingly doing it, as noted.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Under the new law, pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence which is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals is outlawed."

This made you cry, right?

It is bullshit though, the people involved are adults and willingly doing it, as noted.

Yeah, though it's not the only part that did.

Things like violent sex acts or Beastiality and necrophilia have been happening for ages. This will continue in the present and future...that's humanity we have live with it....

I'm a very supportive of keeping these taboos secluded and away from the general public. It should be available for people who are interested or find it erotic. I'm not a very big fan of torture or even harming an indivual to the extreme. There has to be a limit and a reasonable amount of pleasure for this kind of stuff. Those that cross the line should face the law.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Things like violent sex acts or Beastiality and necrophilia have been happening for ages. This will continue in the present and future...that's humanity we have live with it....

I'm a very supportive of keeping these taboos secluded and away from the general public. It should be available for people who are interested or find it erotic. I'm not a very big fan of torture or even harming an indivual to the extreme. There has to be a limit and a reasonable amount of pleasure for this kind of stuff. There must be a limit and those that cross the line should face the law.

Those that harm others without their consent should and do.


Those that harm themselves or others on their request never should.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Those that harm others without their consent should and do.


Those that harm themselves or others on their request never should.

Obviously, you're for assisted suicide.

He's just for murder. Rape too.

Of children.

Originally posted by Bardock42



Those that harm themselves or others on their request never should.

Not to split hairs...but there could be occasions that people whom consent others to harm them in extreme violent ways may not be all there in the head.

For instance taking advantage of a sick mental patient. So we have to keep in mind that the people who do allow themselves could be either brainwash or mentally sick. Those that allow to harm themselves and have a reasonable brain (as well as common sense)....have fun.

Putting in other words. Play it safe....so you can play again later.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, you're for assisted suicide.

There's no logical reason to be against it. If someone wants to die, would you rather have them go painless and peacefully or jump off a 5 story buidling onto the sidewalk, like some guy did in San Francisco yesterday?

Originally posted by BackFire
He's just for murder. Rape too.

Of children.

My bad...I thought it was just for the murder and rape of poop turds.......because he's German. 1234



edit-B42, before you mistake that, it wasn't a parotted lame joke at your expense...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Not to split hairs...but there could be occasions that people whom consent others to harm them in extreme violent ways may not be all there in the head.

Matter of definition. Doesn't matter once it is done though. They wanted it, they got it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
For instance taking advantage of a sick mental patient. So we have to keep in mind that the people who do allow themselves could be either brainwash or mentally sick. Those that allow to harm themselves and have a reasonable brain (as well as common sense)....have fun.

Obviously it is a dodgy area. But to pautally take the freedom from anyone to choose to have harm done to themselves, is bogus.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Putting in other words. Play it safe....so you can play again later.

What if the person really doesn't want to play it again later?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, you're for assisted suicide. Anyone that isn't is a cruel *******.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My bad...I thought it was just for the murder and rape of poop turds.......because he's German. 1234



edit-B42, before you mistake that, it wasn't a parotted lame joke at your expense...

Was it an original, skillful joke then?

Originally posted by Robtard
There's no logical reason to be against it. If someone wants to die, would you rather have them go painless and peacefully or jump off a 5 story buidling onto the sidewalk, like some guy did in San Francisco yesterday?

I know you didn't say I was against it but I'm not. I was just drawing a conclusion from his post just for the sake of convo.

I'm all for letting people voluntarily getting their titties smacked around and for people HELPING others pass peacefully.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Was it an original, skillful joke then?

No...probably far from it. I was satirizing the fact that you get shit( ) for being German. I read you complaining about it in the OTF about a week ago.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No...probably far from it. I was satirizing the fact that you get shit( ) for being German. I read you complaining about it in the OTF about a week ago.

I doubt you did.


Either.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Matter of definition. Doesn't matter once it is done though. They wanted it, they got it.

Obviously it is a dodgy area. But to pautally take the freedom from anyone to choose to have harm done to themselves, is bogus.



What if the person really doesn't want to play it again later?



As I mention earlier there has to be a limit as well as a level of responsibility when it comes to the actions.

There should be arbitration...like in Boxing for example...you can beat your opponent so much till the referee says...okay, that's enough...you have a career ahead of yourself. Don't throw it all away in just one fight.

Catching my drift?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As I mention earlier there has to be a limit as well as a level of responsibility when it comes to the actions.

There should be arbitration...like in Boxing for example...you can beat your opponent so much till the referee says...okay, that's enough...you have a career ahead of yourself. Don't throw it all away in just one fight.

Catching my drift?

Yes, those laws should reflect what they try to prohibit though. And they should never limit freedoms that don't infringe on other humans.

Don't understand how the boxer scenario is an analogy to what we are talking about, though. But, please, don't misunderstand this statement as a request for elaborate details.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I doubt you did.


Either.

Sorry man, but I don't know what you were trying to say.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't understand how the boxer scenario is an analogy to what we are talking about, though. But, please, don't misunderstand this statement as a request for elaborate details.

Damn dude, that was harsh. Syren was right; you don't mince words.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry man, but I don't know what you were trying to say.



Damn dude, that was harsh. Syren was right; you don't mince words.


So?

How was it harsh? I didn't think it was a good analogy...no harm done.


Also, what I was "trying" to say is very obvious in context. I can make a coloured quote thing again though, if you want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So?

How was it harsh? I didn't think it was a good analogy...no harm done.

I'm not raggin' on you for it. I like that about you. I was just sayin'..."Duhhaaaaaauhm", when I read your post.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, what I was "trying" to say is very obvious in context. I can make a coloured quote thing again though, if you want.

Its simple. I applied the distributive property like so..

does this match with this...





No.


Does it match with this?






Not really. It doesn't make sense that you would say "I did you did satirizing the fact that I get shit for being German." If you said, "I doubt you were." I would make more sense to me.

Does it match with this?





Yes. But it doesn't make much sense because I DID read it in the OTF. I couldn't find it. I remember a conversation about it where someone gave you shit about it again and you commented in a sarcastic way. (sounds rather generic, doesn't it?) Regardless, it doesn't make complete sense that you would say that to my post...because you HAVE said it on more than one occasion. If you are saying that you didn't say it in the OTF, great, just splitting hairs. That's not my point.


And what in the world does "either" refer to at the end?

So, you want the post explained or not?