Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.

It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.

It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, no matter who's doing the restriction.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.

It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.

It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist, liberal and "based" right and populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.

The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately.

Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.

So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.