Message from @A. Spader
Discord ID: 657349162597220393
I knew it! Checkmate statists.
Checkmate.
🏁 <:aussieirl:650602683094269952>
I'm watching Lauren Chen's latest show and Taylor Swift is just such a piece of shit
"I'm so oppressed, I'm one of the richest singers in the world ever"
Yeah I watched that earlier. Poor her and all her success.
Wonder if she'd have been able to get started without her daddy's connections 🤔
@A. Spader Yeah, because the whole "broadcasting porn on the side of my house across form a church and school is the same as posting it on the internet" argument was not at all contortions 😂
first of all that wasn't me making that particular argument, secondly to call Matt's defense anything other than scatterbrain suggests we didn't listen to the same show
he would say it was about publishing, thereby saying he was defending it under the 'freedom of the press' and then jump to saying it was speech before saying again he was being taken out of context on speech
and he seemed to vacillate between saying porn should be defended morally and saying he just didn't want the methods "it would take"
🇵 🇮 🇱 🇵 🇺 🇱
Toll= PAID
I didn't say that was you. I'm saying that argument was trying to conflate two completely different topic, which takes mental contortions to make sound logical. Whereas Matt has a simple standard, ie it violates other's rights = it should be banned, it doesn't = it shouldn't be banned.
You're focusing so much on the trees you're missing the forest
lol
yeah that's definitely me doing that
Well you're focusing on his usage of "publishing" vs "speech" rather than looking at the perspective as a whole sooo.... lol
yet another thing - is porn a right?
My ability to do what I see fit that doesn't harm anyone else is a right. My viewing of porn doesn't inherently harm someone else. Therefore, it is part of my right to do what I see fit, yes.
alright, so by your standard, what is destructive personally is completely fine, even if it alters your own nature, as long as it "doesn't hurt anyone else"
of course by this standards anything like a ban on drugs or narcotics is a violation of your rights
Sure. It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself. It is their job to protect me from others
as is any actions against child pornogrophy
> hur dur only my rights matter
t. Lolbergs
as is a great number of other things we have made illegal already
At least, that was the original intent. Obviously the government has grown exponentially to the point where it intrudes even in my ability to do what I want that doesn't harm others
What I'm saying is, that's the ideal via our founding documents. Not how it is implemented today.
ummmmm
have you read what those same founders did in the first and second congresses, and what the states did?
*founding documents*
not founders
so the people who wrote the documents changed their minds completely about government the second after they adopted the constitution?
Lol. I love this idea that Madison and Adams would have been okay with PornHub existing...
It's baffling.
didnt you know? the Founding Fathers were full blown fedora tipping atheists
"the founders would be okay with all my favorite moral degeneracies"
It doesn't matter what they would be ok with. They lined out a government that allows it. The outline of which is supposed to still be our standard for law today.