One is for jerking off while the other is for gossip and criticism.
what if someone is jerking off to your gossip and criticism? better put an id in front of your posts to protect the children.
However, I have not yet seen anyone post any text from legislation in question which would accomplish that.
so where is the text in the patriot act that allows the NSA to do what it does? and if it's there, when and how was it added?
what really is mindboggling that you have several examples right in front of you, but you honestly seem to think this specific one won't be abused - for some reason. because the government suddenly will go "oh wait that's a step too far with an issue too important"? the same government officials who sign off on puberty blockers, trooning out kids and put men in women spaces? you think they really care about kids that much, and not the power it gives them? unless you believe only "the right guys" will be forever in government to not use it against you and only the other guys, but given this thread and your posts I doubt you're that shortsighted.
Check out the Lolicon/Shotacon Defenders thread sometime in Community Watch. It's an easy defense.
While I do not doubt there are people who use the defense for other topics, thus making their motives consistent, the problem is that if you look in that thread you will see what I am talking about regarding the tendency to use disingenuous defenses on this kind of debate topic.
you mean the thread with the movie-blob tier redditors jerking it to their self-righteousness? that's your example? "anti"-threads are a bad enough circlejerk more often than not, and that one's one of the worst, especially considering it's topic.
I'd be more concerned about the harddrive of those 2-cent dr.pizzas spending way too much time virtue-signaling constantly in that thread and than someone pointing out the slippery slope is real.
even if we entertain your point is right, it doesn't really matter. if a tranny says you shouldn't kick puppies, what you gonna do, kick puppies to prove him wrong because he's a troon?
not to mention there ARE already laws in place to deal with most of the issues people have (like exposing minors to porn) that somehow don't apply, what makes you think another one will, and won't be abused at all?
it's also dumb to assume just because someone arguing in context of a specific topic at the time makes him only care about that specific topic, or worse agree with said topic. "oh Wow, you don't wanna kick puppies? you must be a troon yourself!". you can be both against government overreach and for child-diddlers deserving scaphism, it's not a mutually exclusive position.
