talented artist(autist)

But legislating around the lowest common denominator doesnt really work so I suppose its best left alone.

I feel like you guys hit a deadlock in this, since both sides have some truth to it

I think we agree on what should happen in practice, I'm simply more vocal about my disgust

>implying there's some normal guy out there who will just snap and become a pedo because someone drew a childlike person getting fucked

Normal guys aren't the problem tho

The crazies are

how do you think traps started

The crazies were crazies to begin with

And unless I'm mistaking something, John idea was to remove or censor the work a crazy could see and try to reenact

Vidya doesn't cause violence, porn doesn't give people fetishes they didn't already have

I mean, it might put a face to the name, so to speak, but showing someone SCAT every day for a year won't make them a scat fetishist

Good topic

Vidya doesn't cause violence but it introduces ideas that may not have occured to people otherwise and encourages them to conglomerate. Doing anything about it is dumb and counter productive tho.

I do not like the idea of legislated morality.

Neither do I but at the same time I feel personal responsibility has eroded to the point where it's looking better. Which means its probably the worst time to introduce it.

so does books,movies,seeing other people, imagination

what we do

In one game there's a concept that if you're obeying you get a golden ring or something, basically live normal, but if you fuck up you get a black ring signalizing you're a criminal and you literally can't do shit about it and not only that but you're punished by the fact that anything you touch will die/fail (e.g. can't plant food, can't produce anything)

So it makes me wonder how this concept would apply in real world if there was some God-tier thing that would instantly punish you if you fuck up

I mean Law was created for a reason, can't let everything fail into common sense

this is some next level trolling here :D

Hopefuly not

I mean no one likes being forced to obey the rules but yet I feel like some are created just because in abscence of them everyone would kill each other or something

Or it would induce a paranoia in everyone

You wouldn't hurt anyone but are you willing to bet anyone would follow same concept?

Social credit systems will probably do that eventually

Either govt enforced or private

The only, ONLY reason John isn't pro censorship and state-enforced morality is that he has no assurance that the powers that be would stick to HIS terms

It's egotism at its very core

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK3ZP6frAMc

I mean, pretty much. Isnt that why people tolerate other viewpoints? The knowledge that it goes both ways

btw

@sum weren't you looking for this stuff ?
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OkMT4NM7zQrDP6bLnHOMd3oIfw0h5IIF?usp=sharing

oooh

ooooooooooooooooooooooooh

how did you find this

Germany is far away from me so have this e-blowjob

❤

On a serious note i found it in the stach of another weeb