Replies

LC, et alia,

these self-described "conservative" anti-porn crusaders are no more or less than statists on a religious or quasi-religious "moral" power trip. On the internet, such True Believing folk thrive on wasting the time and efforts of others.

wasting someone's time is committing murder in miniature.
to waste one's own time in fruitless debate with them is thus serial suicide on the same small scale.

don't bother with them any longer, LongCut, unless they disrupt an otherwise productive thread. Petty little vipers like these are not worthy of serious consideration, nor are they deserving of the courtesy of reasoned debate. They are immune to both, anyway. Their Shields of Vainglory protect them from all inconvenient facts and contradicting evidence.

Just let them wallow in benighted idiocy.
If they ever become a problem in the real world, there are contingencies ready to be enacted.

I almost didn't bother with this again, KP. We dealt quite well with it last night, and WE GET THE POINT, already! TJ and his cronies hate picture of attractive people having sex, and likewise hate those who enjoy them. They create of whole cloth reasons to make laws against them, based on their irrationality, and in no small amount their basic hatred of real freedom. What more was to be said?

However, we are in a situation right now where this false form of conservatism must be countered, vigourously, because it has the effect of driving away voters that might support REAL conservatism, because it plays into the hands of those who denounce us all as "religious nuts" who ALL want to impose a theocracy on America. Due to the crucial nature of this election, I felt it best to help prove that they are in no way representative of the vast majority of sensible, reasoned people on the Right who do not wish to limit the liberties of others, even if they do not personally like what others do with that liberty.

I was taught early on that those freedoms contained in the Constitution had a corollary...that they might be used in a manner we might NOT like, but that was no reason to abridge them. We cannot "cherry-pick" which freedoms and Liberties we will and will not support.

The statement that "I might disagree with what you say (do, photograph, publish, film, etc.), but I will defend with my life your right to say it" has regrettably fallen from the minds of those who persist in this debate. I wish to make it clear that SOME of us still believe it.