OP is a peak Dunning-Kruger specimen. PayPal blocked his hentai and mixed up his gooning schedule and he's got his panties in a bunch, making ridiculous arguments against ANY censorship. We all know who pushes liberation ideology the hardest for the past few centuries and where did that lead us to. The easiest way to control people is through their lust, greed, pride and worldly desires.
Lazy argument. I never use itch and I didn't know Steam even had porn games but I still oppose this for two reasons: it's going to be used to shut down noticing and it's not going to stop porn.
As for you question for OP, that really goes to the heart of it: what is porn? Where is the line? Because I have pictures of my 6mo in the bath, or my 5yo in a swimsuit at the beach, am I going to jail for that? I guarantee you there are coombrains out there who will blast rope to almost anything, certainly to that.
Sure, you can say that certain things a definitely porn, and I'll agree. But if you can't draw a clear line that everyone can point to and agree on, then the decision is up to the people enforcing it, and they hate us. They will find something, anything, that you have posted that could in any way be construed as CP, and then arrest you for it. Nobody is going to ask what it actually is because it's CP. The news said so.
Back to the question, you aren't asking anything. It's like asking "Are you a Nazi?" I can only respond with, "WTF do you think a Nazi is?" Anyone committing a sexual act on or near a child should be lit on fire, starting with their genitals, and photographic evidence helps to out them. I don't think there's a problem with nudity in general, even if it's a kid, other than we've been oversexualized by Jewish media to assume "nudity=sex", and I don't have a problem with baby bath pictures.
I think most people can make that distinction for themselves. The only people who can't, or won't, are the very people trying to set themselves up as the enforcers of these laws, which they will use against you no matter how much you say you hate porn (cause they don't).
What's lazy about it? Censoring degeneracy is good, censoring truth is bad. So don't give me that slippery slope / false equivocation argument. Them shutting down the truth has nothing to do with shutting down porn because those are different categories of censorship - one has to do with decency and fighting degeneracy, and the other with fighting truth.
My point is that censorship is not bad on principle. It's like saying any application of force is bad. It's good when used to fight against deception and degeneracy and it's bad when it is used to suppress truth. In the first case you're using force to defend what's right and true and the good and in the second you're using force to fight against all that.
As for you question for OP, that really goes to the heart of it: what is porn? Where is the line? Because I have pictures of my 6mo in the bath, or my 5yo in a swimsuit at the beach, am I going to jail for that? I guarantee you there are coombrains out there who will blast rope to almost anything, certainly to that.
That's easy: porn is depiction of sexually explicit images created for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution. You can clearly see that your private pictures of your kid doesn't fit the description. Even without the legal definition we all know what constitutes porn and what does not in the majority of cases.
Back to the question, you aren't asking anything. It's like asking "Are you a Nazi?" I can only respond with, "WTF do you think a Nazi is?" Anyone committing a sexual act on or near a child should be lit on fire, starting with their genitals, and photographic evidence helps to out them. I don't think there's a problem with nudity in general, even if it's a kid, other than we've been oversexualized by Jewish media to assume "nudity=sex", and I don't have a problem with baby bath pictures.
Again, your argument hinges on semantics and the supposed vagueness of what porn is, which is a very (((lawyerish))) way to argue. Now applying my definition of porn, what I asked OP was "should depicting children in sexually explicit or suggestive images for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution be censored"?
The only reason that everyone doesn't hate Jews is because they suppress information, including the Talmud.
The average joe thinks porn isn't that bad because they think it's just naked women. If they saw how deep the hole goes, nobody would tolerate their kids browsing porn sites or Youtube pushing it in the algorythm.
Information (good or bad, so long as it's true) is sunlight and sunlight kills Jews.
They aren't proposing to shut down porn sites, or demonetise them, or even make sure that they aren't hosting CP.
They're going to require online ID to view porn. That's it, that's what we're cheering for; the further normalisation and institutionalisation of porn.
So what is a porn site? Pornhub, no doubt, but this will actually help them by shutting down smaller competitors who can't afford to implement an ID system. We can post pictures to this site, which could be porn, so every site with user-generated content is now a potential porn site and thus requires ID.
That's what this is about. We're not preventing another 9/11, we're not stopping kids being left behind, we're not even protecting them from porn (see Youtube Kids); we're getting rid of the anonymous internet.
And I know "nobody's really anonymous" but from a criminal law standpoint, we are. They can make a really educated guess at who we are, which is enough to rile up a mob or even for a civil action, but for a criminal matter, where they put your in jail for "hate speech", they still need to prove who you are. Digital ID does that.
Don't be useful idiots. If this were actually making the world a better place, the government wouldn't be doing it.
They will not stop at porn. The moment they notice you when you are a protestant, or when you speak against the government, or when you say that the Noahide Laws are drivel, and they recognize how you look, you will end up in the gas chamber and you will be happy.
Oh ya, that's just how they package it. The real reason is to get your ID to use sites like this. I know. I'm glad. Fuck my screen addiction and it also cuts our porn for children. Honestly, I couldn't be happier
Way to admit you don't have control over your actions and need someone else to exert greater control over humanity in order to fix your flawed behavior
All this internet is shit. Monitoring, harvesting our time and dumbing us down to make us easier to manage. You're most likely another person in denial, but so that we don't ding your ego, I will assume you're one of the rare internet users who is not screen addicted, even though I see you all over this site.
I know the world would be better off if these laws inspired them to put down the screen, like it will do for me... because there is no fucking way I'm will to give up my anomimity online, I will just quit using internet first. But I'm rare. Why? Because I'm aware I'm screen addicted I have more power over it
You think it's "rare" for an Internet user (aka pretty much every first person in a first world country at this point) not to be addicted? You need to go outside and meet people - preferably not grown up iPad kids.
I use this place like a newspaper, and it's the only platform I engage with, about once a day on average. Sure I'm being tracked, harvested, profiled, etc, and this is all a tool for control. I also keep in mind that every single story on communities may be a psyop and use my own brain and life experience to make decisions, not much else can be done considering tptb pretty much knew how to manipulate all of humanity even before having extreme amounts of data on all different types of people. I don't think them exerting more control is the solution, and certainly I don't need them to do so in order for me to have control of my own life. In fact I'd have even more control if they fucked off entirely
When the second Millennium Kingdom created by the corporate and government elites fall upon you, you will not be saved or blessed.
You will be tortured in the deepest pits of hell, beyond death, no longer be able to think for yourself, yet filled to the brim with joy for your new, eternal living death.
a) Being implies person (per sonos; by sound), hence sound awakening being unless ignored for one another's noise, like for example suggested pluralism (people).
censorship against thing I don't like is good actually
a) Reasoning (for vs against; I vs you; do vs don't; like vs dislike; is vs isn't; good vs bad; actual vs hypothetical) implies censoring of implication (if/then).
b) Ones consent to any suggestion of another implies censored choosing censure.
c) Censor/censere/kent - "to speak solemnly, proclaim" + Heretic/hairetikos - "able to chose"...suggestion and consent represent censor and heretic.
If one ignores perception for suggestion, then that becomes a heresy censored by others.
they offer
Offer implies all perceivable offering each one perception..."they" implies suggested pluralism tempting one to ignore what singularity offers.
Fixed your image title.
Imagine not being in favor of censorship. Imagine being such a ✡libertarian✡ that you actually believe every aspect of human existence is a commodity.
OP is a peak Dunning-Kruger specimen. PayPal blocked his hentai and mixed up his gooning schedule and he's got his panties in a bunch, making ridiculous arguments against ANY censorship. We all know who pushes liberation ideology the hardest for the past few centuries and where did that lead us to. The easiest way to control people is through their lust, greed, pride and worldly desires.
OP, should child pron be censored and banned?
Lazy argument. I never use itch and I didn't know Steam even had porn games but I still oppose this for two reasons: it's going to be used to shut down noticing and it's not going to stop porn.
As for you question for OP, that really goes to the heart of it: what is porn? Where is the line? Because I have pictures of my 6mo in the bath, or my 5yo in a swimsuit at the beach, am I going to jail for that? I guarantee you there are coombrains out there who will blast rope to almost anything, certainly to that.
Sure, you can say that certain things a definitely porn, and I'll agree. But if you can't draw a clear line that everyone can point to and agree on, then the decision is up to the people enforcing it, and they hate us. They will find something, anything, that you have posted that could in any way be construed as CP, and then arrest you for it. Nobody is going to ask what it actually is because it's CP. The news said so.
Back to the question, you aren't asking anything. It's like asking "Are you a Nazi?" I can only respond with, "WTF do you think a Nazi is?" Anyone committing a sexual act on or near a child should be lit on fire, starting with their genitals, and photographic evidence helps to out them. I don't think there's a problem with nudity in general, even if it's a kid, other than we've been oversexualized by Jewish media to assume "nudity=sex", and I don't have a problem with baby bath pictures.
I think most people can make that distinction for themselves. The only people who can't, or won't, are the very people trying to set themselves up as the enforcers of these laws, which they will use against you no matter how much you say you hate porn (cause they don't).
What's lazy about it? Censoring degeneracy is good, censoring truth is bad. So don't give me that slippery slope / false equivocation argument. Them shutting down the truth has nothing to do with shutting down porn because those are different categories of censorship - one has to do with decency and fighting degeneracy, and the other with fighting truth.
My point is that censorship is not bad on principle. It's like saying any application of force is bad. It's good when used to fight against deception and degeneracy and it's bad when it is used to suppress truth. In the first case you're using force to defend what's right and true and the good and in the second you're using force to fight against all that.
That's easy: porn is depiction of sexually explicit images created for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution. You can clearly see that your private pictures of your kid doesn't fit the description. Even without the legal definition we all know what constitutes porn and what does not in the majority of cases.
Again, your argument hinges on semantics and the supposed vagueness of what porn is, which is a very (((lawyerish))) way to argue. Now applying my definition of porn, what I asked OP was "should depicting children in sexually explicit or suggestive images for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution be censored"?
The only reason that everyone doesn't hate Jews is because they suppress information, including the Talmud.
The average joe thinks porn isn't that bad because they think it's just naked women. If they saw how deep the hole goes, nobody would tolerate their kids browsing porn sites or Youtube pushing it in the algorythm.
Information (good or bad, so long as it's true) is sunlight and sunlight kills Jews.
Even the word "censorship" is vague.
They aren't proposing to shut down porn sites, or demonetise them, or even make sure that they aren't hosting CP.
They're going to require online ID to view porn. That's it, that's what we're cheering for; the further normalisation and institutionalisation of porn.
So what is a porn site? Pornhub, no doubt, but this will actually help them by shutting down smaller competitors who can't afford to implement an ID system. We can post pictures to this site, which could be porn, so every site with user-generated content is now a potential porn site and thus requires ID.
That's what this is about. We're not preventing another 9/11, we're not stopping kids being left behind, we're not even protecting them from porn (see Youtube Kids); we're getting rid of the anonymous internet.
And I know "nobody's really anonymous" but from a criminal law standpoint, we are. They can make a really educated guess at who we are, which is enough to rile up a mob or even for a civil action, but for a criminal matter, where they put your in jail for "hate speech", they still need to prove who you are. Digital ID does that.
Don't be useful idiots. If this were actually making the world a better place, the government wouldn't be doing it.
Censorship against porn is good actually. It's truth
They will not stop at porn. The moment they notice you when you are a protestant, or when you speak against the government, or when you say that the Noahide Laws are drivel, and they recognize how you look, you will end up in the gas chamber and you will be happy.
Oh ya, that's just how they package it. The real reason is to get your ID to use sites like this. I know. I'm glad. Fuck my screen addiction and it also cuts our porn for children. Honestly, I couldn't be happier
These same people are literally putting porn in children's books.
"fuck my screen addiction"
Way to admit you don't have control over your actions and need someone else to exert greater control over humanity in order to fix your flawed behavior
At least I'm not lying to myself like you
If you need to assume everyone is like you in order to feel better, have at it
All this internet is shit. Monitoring, harvesting our time and dumbing us down to make us easier to manage. You're most likely another person in denial, but so that we don't ding your ego, I will assume you're one of the rare internet users who is not screen addicted, even though I see you all over this site.
I know the world would be better off if these laws inspired them to put down the screen, like it will do for me... because there is no fucking way I'm will to give up my anomimity online, I will just quit using internet first. But I'm rare. Why? Because I'm aware I'm screen addicted I have more power over it
You think it's "rare" for an Internet user (aka pretty much every first person in a first world country at this point) not to be addicted? You need to go outside and meet people - preferably not grown up iPad kids.
I use this place like a newspaper, and it's the only platform I engage with, about once a day on average. Sure I'm being tracked, harvested, profiled, etc, and this is all a tool for control. I also keep in mind that every single story on communities may be a psyop and use my own brain and life experience to make decisions, not much else can be done considering tptb pretty much knew how to manipulate all of humanity even before having extreme amounts of data on all different types of people. I don't think them exerting more control is the solution, and certainly I don't need them to do so in order for me to have control of my own life. In fact I'd have even more control if they fucked off entirely
People need to wake up before it's too late.
When the second Millennium Kingdom created by the corporate and government elites fall upon you, you will not be saved or blessed.
You will be tortured in the deepest pits of hell, beyond death, no longer be able to think for yourself, yet filled to the brim with joy for your new, eternal living death.
a) Being implies person (per sonos; by sound), hence sound awakening being unless ignored for one another's noise, like for example suggested pluralism (people).
b) Read this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we aka nosism (the use of a we, us, or our to refer to oneself) and then notice who makes suggestions in the name of "we the people"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Then notice that suggesting nosism implies "uniting states" from natural separation (analysis) into artificial unification (synthesis)...
a) Reasoning (for vs against; I vs you; do vs don't; like vs dislike; is vs isn't; good vs bad; actual vs hypothetical) implies censoring of implication (if/then).
b) Ones consent to any suggestion of another implies censored choosing censure.
c) Censor/censere/kent - "to speak solemnly, proclaim" + Heretic/hairetikos - "able to chose"...suggestion and consent represent censor and heretic.
If one ignores perception for suggestion, then that becomes a heresy censored by others.
Offer implies all perceivable offering each one perception..."they" implies suggested pluralism tempting one to ignore what singularity offers.