You can try to impose it, but it's so goofy that you should save it.
Anyway, yes. To their everlasting detriment, Americans are too damn religious. As developed nations go, we rank among some of the least developed when it comes to religious idiocy, education, our legal system, and healthcare.
Sam, sometimes you're a real putz.its also probably the only place where the religious right and the atheist will both defend kiddie porn and pedophilic text message senders as "personal freedom of expression"
Sam, sometimes you're a real putz.
Simple. I'd immediately remove every single reference to god for all public items (money, buildings, etc.). I'd ban any religious observance (prayer, etc) as a part of any government procedure.Well how would you combat the "religious idiocy" if you were President?
It is my goal in life to be as annoying as Mrs Bucket (pronounced as Bouquet).
People should dive into bushes when they see me coming.
its also probably the only place where the religious right and the atheist will both defend kiddie porn and pedophilic text message senders as "personal freedom of expression"
Well, there is nothing inherent in humans that prevents physical attraction to "children" of certain ages. There is also nothing inherently damaging about sexual contact between adults and children of certain ages.NAMBLA backs the Democrats, there you have it Sam.
Take that back.
I see your point. The ivory parallel is a good one. But even virtual porn is illegal, drawings too. It is a despicable thing, to think of young children sexually, but if the person views this stuff and never commits a crime related to it is it a crime? Out of all the thousands that look at child porn how many actually go out and rape one? The same amount of horror movie fans that go out and re-enact the grisly scenes in the movie?
Exactly.
Geo D now has the moral highground. Yes, child porn is wrong. But I'd love to know the ages of those in the pictures. In the US, a 17 year old in a sexually explicit picture is "child porn". Obviously rediculous.
This is the old "slippery-slope" problem. And were these "images" photos or drawings?
It's so easy to declare that thus and such is "sick".
I really wonder what "sick" fantasies all of you pure citizens indulge in but deny to the world. A pointless question, I know.
Covering up what? That Foley wrote some odd, sexually suggestive emails? Is that a crime?
Were any pages harmed in any way? So ...protect them from what?
Baron Max
Not at all. Why do you and others here leap to unjustified conclusions and then say something like "So, what you're saying is..."?Superlum, so instead of "all men are created equal," it would read "all persons are evolved equally?" What a novel concept, in light of the fact that Darwinian evolution is according to the "survival of the fittest." You got some splainin to do.
Well, there is nothing inherent in humans that prevents physical attraction to "children" of certain ages. There is also nothing inherently damaging about sexual contact between adults and children of certain ages.
For instance, the physical form I'm most attracted to is a female in the 5' range, light to medium brown hair, small to medium sized breasts, somewhat athletic in build, clear and light to medium skin tone, well rounded butt, pretty but not "classically beautiful" face.
There. Now, how many "kids" of say, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc years old does that describe?
So, am I "sick" for being attracted to that form-factor?
Whatever.
So, just like the typical theist, sam has faith that she's spot-on about all of this. Comforting.
A 16 year old boy dreaming of a 16 year old girl is natural.
A 40-50 year old doing the same is just plain sick.
Please sam, tell us what has changed between the 16 and 40-50 year old persons dream from being natural to sickening?