Iceland wants to ban Internet porn

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm sorry Bob, but the book of revelation, the one found in the bible, is just so much crap. Not that mankind is not on a collision course with himself, he is, but all the specifics, if you can call them that, are just guess's. There are no such things as seers of the future.

Why don't you just tear out all the Biblical stuff in that precious Britannica of yours so as not to sully the leather and gold leaf.

Unlike the Bible, Britannica, I'm sure, is just reporting as to what is contained within the bibles pages, and not making judgement calls as to it's credibility. There is a difference, Bob!

[chaz wyman]

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

[SpheresOfBalance]

f, I see that any adults, that agree to engage in such productions, do exactly that, agree to engage, it's that simple. Further you assume that it would incite, rather than quell desire, all megalos do this, so as to assert their dictatorship.[/color]

The Internet is a open access medium available to children.

Some Pornography is not made with the permission of the participants.
Then illegal production should be attacked, not all of "photography of adults having sex."

So, your point fails on two counts.

I hate your kind. This way of thinking is exactly the same asinine crap that surrounded the "Bevis and Butthead caused a child to take a lighter and burn down his home," fiasco. You freaks that believe that EVERYONE else is somehow responsible for the actions of YOUR children, kills me. You freaks want the WHOLE WORLD to play nanny for you because YOU'RE too inept! GROW UP my boy, and assume a little responsibility for yourself and yours, for a change.

There's a plethora of crap that your kids can get into that's far more dangerous than porn, that's all around us every day.

GAWD, some CHILDREN never grow up!

If you were half the person you think you are , you might have noticed the word "some", which I took the trouble to Italicise and underline for the hard of thinking.

But you prefer to adopt an idiotic blanket ban.

Boy, you messed this retort up, like really bad. Reread to see that I addressed each point of yours independently, such that what you say in this newest message, is incoherent.

[chaz wyman]

f, I see that any adults, that agree to engage in such productions, do exactly that, agree to engage, it's that simple. Further you assume that it would incite, rather than quell desire, all megalos do this, so as to assert their dictatorship.[/color]
!

If you were half the person you think you are , you might have noticed the word "some", which I took the trouble to Italicise and underline for the hard of thinking.

But you prefer to adopt an idiotic blanket ban.

Boy, you messed this retort up, like really bad.

I think not.
I assume that you mangled grammar is designed to indicate a lack in me, when in fact it seems to be you that is at fault.
Try to re-read the thread. Maybe if you get a little help from an adult you might be better equipped to understand what is going on here?

[bobevenson]

I'm sorry Bob, but the book of revelation, the one found in the bible, is just so much crap. Not that mankind is not on a collision course with himself, he is, but all the specifics, if you can call them that, are just guess's. There are no such things as seers of the future.

Why don't you just tear out all the Biblical stuff in that precious Britannica of yours so as not to sully the leather and gold leaf.

Unlike the Bible, Britannica, I'm sure, is just reporting as to what is contained within the bibles pages, and not making judgement calls as to it's credibility. There is a difference, Bob!

Britannica made a judgment call on the identification of the beast with the name/number 666, and refused to admit its error until I persuaded the author of the article to force Britannica to do it! Why don't you just throw that set of dishonest and crappy Britannica volumes in the trash?

[chaz wyman]

Bird-brains of a feather, stick together.
Boob and SoB.
A marriage made in heaven.

Together you can wank to your heart's content together over rape videos.

I see you as Beavis and Butthead. Which is which?

[SpheresOfBalance]

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

As usual a liar, to fabricate false retorts, that address who knows whose commentary. When will you ever get real, and keep your projections of personal preference out of your retorts?

[chaz wyman]

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

As usual a liar, to fabricate false retorts, that address who knows whose commentary. When will you ever get real, and keep your projections of personal preference out of your retorts?

You really need to address your grammar, and cognition.

You also need to see a post for what it is. The reason I did not include the comments of others, is that the above are list of statements, not retorts. If I had wanted to retort I would have included the statements of overs, as I usually do.

Please keep up!

[SpheresOfBalance]

f, I see that any adults, that agree to engage in such productions, do exactly that, agree to engage, it's that simple. Further you assume that it would incite, rather than quell desire, all megalos do this, so as to assert their dictatorship.[/color]
!

If you were half the person you think you are , you might have noticed the word "some", which I took the trouble to Italicise and underline for the hard of thinking.

But you prefer to adopt an idiotic blanket ban.

Boy, you messed this retort up, like really bad.

I think not.
I assume that you mangled grammar is designed to indicate a lack in me, when in fact it seems to be you that is at fault.
Try to re-read the thread. Maybe if you get a little help from an adult you might be better equipped to understand what is going on here?

Grammar has nothing to do with it, mister context, not. I clearly address each point in separate paragraphs, that are clear as to that which they address. Either your eyes or brain have left the building.

[chaz wyman]

f, I see that any adults, that agree to engage in such productions, do exactly that, agree to engage, it's that simple. Further you assume that it would incite, rather than quell desire, all megalos do this, so as to assert their dictatorship.[/color]
!

If you were half the person you think you are , you might have noticed the word "some", which I took the trouble to Italicise and underline for the hard of thinking.

But you prefer to adopt an idiotic blanket ban.

Boy, you messed this retort up, like really bad.

I think not.
I assume that you mangled grammar is designed to indicate a lack in me, when in fact it seems to be you that is at fault.
Try to re-read the thread. Maybe if you get a little help from an adult you might be better equipped to understand what is going on here?

Grammar has nothing to do with it, mister context, not. I clearly address each point in separate paragraphs, that are clear as to that which they address. Either your eyes or brain have left the building.

Priceless!

Redundancy
Poor Grammar

[SpheresOfBalance]

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

As usual a liar, to fabricate false retorts, that address who knows whose commentary. When will you ever get real, and keep your projections of personal preference out of your retorts?

You really need to address your grammar, and cognition.

You also need to see a post for what it is. The reason I did not include the comments of others, is that the above are list of statements, not retorts. If I had wanted to retort I would have included the statements of overs, as I usually do.

Please keep up!

Retort is simply a reply, idiot! And you were obviously addressing figments of your imagination, as it had nothing to do with what I said. Reread to see how you failed.

[bobevenson]

Why does the term "mutual masturbation" come to mind reading your posts?

[chaz wyman]

Retort is simply a reply, idiot! And you were obviously addressing figments of your imagination, as it had nothing to do with what I said. Reread to see how you failed.

Awww, how cute, didums wooked up the word in the dictionary.

Let me spell it out for the hard of thinking.
I was not retorting.
I was not replying.
I made stand alone statements that relate to the thread.
You are the idiot.
How many times do I have to tell you?

[chaz wyman]

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against women in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

No sane person ought to allow films which portray rape and other acts of violence against children in a positive, sexually provocative and sexually stimulating way.

It is easy enough to fabricate such imagery without the participation of real women or children. So the issue is not about the required consent of women or children, but about the production of socially damaging images that promote otherwise illegal activities.

It is the democratic right of any country to impose whatsoever level of prohibition or censorship on whatsoever they choose.

It is the opinion of megalomaniacs and tyrants to impose their own views on other countries.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Boy, you messed this retort up, like really bad.

I think not.
I assume that you mangled grammar is designed to indicate a lack in me, when in fact it seems to be you that is at fault.
Try to re-read the thread. Maybe if you get a little help from an adult you might be better equipped to understand what is going on here?

Grammar has nothing to do with it, mister context, not. I clearly address each point in separate paragraphs, that are clear as to that which they address. Either your eyes or brain have left the building.

Priceless!

Redundancy
Poor Grammar

Redundancy as reiteration for the slight of mind. And grammar nor spelling, matters not, as contained in rapid tit for tat response, and is always a case, only, for those that know they are beaten.