That's a fair point. But Spooner was a man of principles. I suspect he would have stuck to his guns. He was a tireless advocate for liberty.I made it to Part 17 (XVII) before I got tired of reading it. But I wonder what would be the worse vice this guy could have thought of in the late 1800, that also wouldn't be considered some form of Satanism or mental illness
Wait til they discover the Lolicon section...
- Thread starter kblessinggr
- Start date
Course that didn't stop people from interpreting even scripture in their own way in order to suit their needs.
Right, but Spooner didn't claim to create man, so he can't be held to account for the stupidity of some of them.
God on the other hand has to be responsible for all of the morons in this world, if we're to believe he is truly the maker of heaven and earth.
Right, but Spooner didn't claim to create man, so he can't be held to account for the stupidity of some of them.
God on the other hand has to be responsible for all of the morons in this world, if we're to believe he is truly the maker of heaven and earth.
Well the bible did say God created man in his own image, so by that logic he's one crazy motherfucker. (but he also tried to pass this off by claiming that all man is born with sin).
Riiiight, except I never once mentioned government banning. I've only talked about the possible connection between a game that encourages rape fantasies and how that normalizes or destigmatizes rape in the eyes of society.
I talked about the irony of Japan considering genitalia offensive, but not vivid simulations of rape. Bombastic's Yakuza explanation shed some interesting light on that topic.
But having the government decide what is 'offensive' or' dangerous' is an arbitrary decision that could easily be exploited, just like hate speech laws in Canada are only used to silence conservatives.
Sorry, I know you're frothing at the mouth to play the 'hypocrisy' card like any good little lib - maybe some other day, fella.
Preferably, human decency would prevail and society would shun or collectively boycott these enterprises, something that is well within their rights to do as consumers. But a government ban? Never mentioned.
It seems the only reason somebody brought it up as my supposed position was as a hysterical overreaction in order to avoid discussing the obvious societal normalization of sick and violent crimes.
Course leaving the decisions up to society is also quite arbitrary since depending on which demographic you ask homosexuals should be executed unless of course they're pop stars, and faces of death would be ok, but a passionate kiss needs to be rated NC-17
And if you happen to liven in a religious community you're pretty much fucked anyways.
Society has a right to buy whatever they want, or conversely boycott whomever they want. They don't have a right to execute whomever they want.
I gotta give HB props. These are very good posts about market justice and bottom up culture.
I was under the impression from your first post that you were for government bannings (and if this was the case you would be a hypocrite). I guess that is not the true, and I completely agree with this post.
I don't know how much of that post was directed at me but I'm not at all liberal.