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"?
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"?