Oh not that pathetic old chestnut again. Please tell me I'm imagining it! "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
Your conceitedness, not to mention your mind-numbingly, boring repetitiveness precedes you.
SW, don't you see you are accusing RandFan of what you are doing, and you did it in the same post!!!
Here, let me show you:
Let's see:
Children are statistically likely to be harmed by VCP (there is a perceived threat).
Where is your evidence? So far, this is just your opinion. "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
VCP is disgusting and no one should defend it.
Again, this is just your opinion and you are ignoring any other reason VCP can exist - I've mentioned several, which you've conveniently dismissed. Again, you are saying "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
Our concern for children should be greater than any concern of loss of freedom for perverts.
What if YOUR type of porn is considered dangerous to children and you are lumped right in with those perverts? Don't think it wouldn't happen. Porn, in general, even "marshmallow porn" is considered dangerous to children by some people here and some people want even "marshmallow porn" banned because of that exact reason you state. In those people's eyes, you are a pervert as much as someone who has real child porn. Those people, as well as you, are saying "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
I never claimed anything based on statistics. The term I used was "reasonable to suppose".
No, you're right. You are not using statistics, you are basing your "evidence" on the limited group of people you know. See, waaaay back at the beginning of this thread you said that from the number of women you know, no "normal" woman would do porn. You are basing that on the statical data you have based on the women you know, otherwise you wouldn't call it "reasonable to suppose".
You continue to do the same thing with this opinion too.
You've also overlooked:
VCP (by my definition) has only one purpose - to sexually arouse people with a morbid interest in children,
You said "by my definition". Again, "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
and
We know (we have compelling evidence!) that many people lose judgement when sexually aroused to the extent that they will risk just about any foreseeable consequences in return for satisfying their immediate sexual desire.
Where is your "compelling evidence"? You just admitted to me that "High ranking politicians make "choices" about how to behave when sexually aroused, and sometimes those "choices" suck - big time." Earlier you asked me if I believed that said politicians are more special than any other person. I believe we are in agreement that they are not. So if we are in agreement, why are you contradicting yourself now? Sorry, this is not "compelling evidence". This is yet another case of "It makes sense to me (because I wrote it
) therefore how can it possibly not make sense to eveybody else?"
Now, there's something mildly entertaining about to start on TV far more deserving of my attention than you RandFan. I'm afraid you'll have to wait until at least tomorrow to continue your spat. I trust your Manga collection will keep you occupied.
And now you resort to high-horsed innuendo and insult. Sorry, SW, that kind of stuff isn't proving your point any.
rolleyes
