If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   2 Girls + 1 Cup = 4 Years   (reason.com) divider line 419
    More: Asinine, victimless crimes, Naruto characters, sexual exploitation, U.S. Department of Justice  
•       •       •

46401 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2013 at 12:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 04:53:37 AM  
And this travesty of justice is covered on a site on which one cannot spell shiat.
 
2013-01-17 04:57:16 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.


If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.

thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.


Yes, but generally there is zero pleasure in gassing animals. Certainly no one who I ever know who worked that job (very limited pool I will admit) enjoyed that aspect of it. Usually the person torturing animals is deriving some sort of pleasure. So it's not really what I was trying to (apparently badly) go for (which is that basically bestiality is a weird beast so to speak). I'm also not sure I agree with sex being equal torture. Yes, for small animals that can definitely be an issue, but I'm pretty sure a mare isn't being... eh... aware... of a human males member.

The poo thing though definitely shouldn't be illegal. Gross as it may be too.
 
2013-01-17 05:03:39 AM  

log_jammin: thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.

precisely.


OK congrats, you can find a logic flaw in a Rush show. You do realize that if you ignored him completely, no matter how obscene his shiat gets, that he will end up on satellite radio and you can forget about him. Or do you need him?
 
2013-01-17 05:04:39 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


Welcome to Poobama's Shartmerica.
 
2013-01-17 05:05:37 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.

If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.


No, by God botherers I mean the Fundys and the Dominionists. The ones who are in your face, believe this is a Christian country and that you are bad for not believing on Jesus too, and in exactly the same way as them. You know, the ones who totally ignore Matthew 6:6 IIRC. I sorta meant exactly what it sounded like with botherers... the ones that bother you about their faith and what they think of you and yours. The ones who want our laws to reflect their beliefs
 
2013-01-17 05:09:12 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.

If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.

thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.

Yes, but generally there is zero pleasure in gassing animals. Certainly no one who I ever know who worked that job (very limited pool I will admit) enjoyed that aspect of it. Usually the person torturing animals is deriving some sort of pleasure. So it's not really what I was trying to (apparently badly) go for (which is that basically bestiality is a weird beast so to speak). I'm also not sure I agree with sex being equal torture. Yes, for small animals that can definitely be an issue, but I'm pretty sure a mare isn't being... eh... aware... of a human males member.

The poo thing though definitely shouldn't be illegal. Gross as it may be too.


I agree. I dont imagine a dairy cow going through any where near as much distress, being simply farked by a human, as any toy breed has to endure being dressed as a pumpkin etc.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:46 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: farkRus: I'm a 5' tall female. When I was a teenager, a giant stray black lab jumped me in my front yard. He pinned me down on the ground and went to work. If I had been involved in an activity that required little clothing, such as swimming, the dog absolutely would have successfully raped me. Fortunately, that was not the case. It took my dad and two neighbors to pull him off of me. I'm not saying it's a common situation, but it can happen.

On another note, there are some very interesting discussions in this thread. Who knew fecal porn and animal farking could inspire such a wealth of ideas?

I have been assured this is bullshiat. There are no females on the internet.


You've been misinformed. There are plenty of females on the internet. We just all happen to have ridiculously sharp knees.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:58 AM  

thisisarepeat: OK congrats, you can find a logic flaw in a Rush show. You do realize that if you ignored him completely, no matter how obscene his shiat gets, that he will end up on satellite radio and you can forget about him. Or do you need him?


I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-17 05:20:57 AM  

Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated


I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.
 
2013-01-17 05:21:27 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: No, by God botherers I mean the Fundys and the Dominionists. The ones who are in your face, believe this is a Christian country and that you are bad for not believing on Jesus too, and in exactly the same way as them. You know, the ones who totally ignore Matthew 6:6 IIRC. I sorta meant exactly what it sounded like with botherers... the ones that bother you about their faith and what they think of you and yours. The ones who want our laws to reflect their beliefs


Ah okay then. I'm not a god botherer then. I certainly don't like being proselytized at, can't imagine any others are too thrilled about it either.

thisisarepeat: I agree. I dont imagine a dairy cow going through any where near as much distress, being simply farked by a human, as any toy breed has to endure being dressed as a pumpkin etc.


I knew a dog who would hunch with her nose almost pushed into the carpet, shake, and whine pitifully while staring sadly at people when dressed up. I'd never seen that dog ever act like that before or since (even when wearing a walk harness). Luckily the person felt so bad I've never seen that dog wearing anything else since then.
 
2013-01-17 05:31:31 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.


And this is why I need to learn to refresh before posting. Please, don't take my last post as accusing you of proselytizing, that was completely unconnected to this post. Yours was a much better post than I could muster at this point (insomnia, wee). I try to not be one of those old testament, strangely not always easy. It certainly is an easy way out of an argument you may not be comfortable with.
 
2013-01-17 05:43:48 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.

And this is why I need to learn to refresh before posting. Please, don't take my last post as accusing you of proselytizing, that was completely unconnected to this post. Yours was a much better post than I could muster at this point (insomnia, wee). I try to not be one of those old testament, strangely not always easy. It certainly is an easy way out of an argument you may not be comfortable with.


No worries Bud, I made two posts addressing two separate issues. You have done nothing wrong.

It is an easy way out of an argument, because there is quite a disconnect between understanding what Jesus said, and actually living it in today's world. Frankly, being like Jesus is impractical at best and impossible at worst. Naturally we rationalize that as long as we do the best that we can it'll probably be enough; but that enters into a whole host of thorny theological issues where in you need to analyze your motives for your behaviors and that involves a lot of uncomfortable introspection. Jesus sure was a tough act to follow.

The most common cop-out that I see, and I see it all the time, is people who claim that simply saying that they have accepted Jesus as their savior is sufficient. I wholly and completely disagree 100%. If that belief isn't reflected in one's actions and just as importantly in one's motives for their actions I think that person is boned. At the end of the day I believe salvation is found through hearnestly
 
2013-01-17 05:51:06 AM  
fiddle sticks...
earnestly loving one's follow men and woman and acting on that love for the sake of caring for them. Anything short of acting out of love, and demonstrating you believe in Jesus and love him through your actions is insufficient. They will know you are a Christian by the way that you act, and they reasons that you act that way.
You don't do the right thing because you are trying to do the right thing to be saved. You do the right thing because you love your fellow man and can't help but do everything in your power to help and comfort and care for and love them.
I'm sure this view point is quite odd coming from someone who is pretty damn sure there is no God, but still wonders quite a bit about it. I was a good Catholic until College, when I really started looking at the Catholic doctrine and asking questions that my priests didn't have sufficient answers for.Twas even an altar boy. I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat. I think that you are judged on how you acted and why, and if learning about Jesus and his message of peace and love is what got you on that track, great. If you act the exact same way but have never heard of Jesus, or you subscribe to Islam or Buddhism, that's great too.
 
2013-01-17 05:52:08 AM  
I'm pretty sure we were discussing farking animals and eating shiat before you guys showed up.
 
2013-01-17 05:59:18 AM  
Well, shiat.....

And not a single mention of farking a dead dog in front of a day care center. You'll are slippin'.

and has anyone seen |X|Jim|X| in the past while?
 
2013-01-17 06:00:37 AM  
better?
Can't we talk about obscenity and theology? I mean, I already gave my opinion that this shouldn't be a surprising ruling. Aggravating yes, but it's not out of the blue.What else is there to say?
 
2013-01-17 06:08:42 AM  
i.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2013-01-17 06:11:02 AM  
I thought the obscenity-meister looked like Commander Adama
i.imgur.comwww.walkingtaco.com
 
2013-01-17 06:18:15 AM  

Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.


Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend
 
2013-01-17 06:20:34 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend


then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
 
2013-01-17 06:23:08 AM  
media.reason.comimg2.timeinc.net

/Meh all the good ones were taken already.
//Gene Simmons oddly still available.
 
2013-01-17 06:28:17 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?


ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second
 
2013-01-17 06:29:52 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second


I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.
 
2013-01-17 06:49:02 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.


Ok probably. My fault.
 
2013-01-17 06:56:41 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Ok probably. My fault.


's all good.
 
2013-01-17 07:03:09 AM  

pup.socket: And this travesty of justice is covered on a site on which one cannot spell shiat.


That's only because many Farkers view the site at work and those words will get the site blacklisted on workplace filters. Nothing at all to do with the actual content of the conversation.
 
2013-01-17 07:03:48 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


Company and person. Different words and different meanings.

Manfred J. Hatton and moron. Different words and same meaning.
 
2013-01-17 07:04:31 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Ok probably. My fault.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

Someone said "fire"!
 
2013-01-17 07:07:21 AM  
I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.
 
2013-01-17 07:08:54 AM  
On one hand, free speech is a constitutional right.
One the other, the "artist" guy is just a talentless shock jock.
 
2013-01-17 07:26:45 AM  
Good. I have no problem with reasonable limits on the bill of rights. It was designed to make a freer, better society not be a suicide pact to make the country worst.
 
2013-01-17 07:30:07 AM  
Sending him to jail is just giving him new first-hand inspiration for his art.
 
2013-01-17 07:32:38 AM  
Bestiality should be illegal.

Activity between two consenting human adults, however obscene, should not be illegal.
 
2013-01-17 07:41:18 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.


Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.
 
2013-01-17 07:44:21 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.
 
2013-01-17 07:44:30 AM  

spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


So you think MMA should be outlawed?
 
2013-01-17 07:46:07 AM  

Wayne 985: casual disregard: spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.

Well, that's a bit much. I'm pretty happy with jailing people who make kiddie porn and death threats.


Threat, child abuse.

That's not a judgement on speech.
 
2013-01-17 07:46:30 AM  

bacchanalias and consequences: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

So much this. If freedom of speech protects Westboro and the KKK how does it not protect to this.


Apparently, POOP THREADS are also verboten in the justice system, too. A 4-year bannination. Dayum.
 
2013-01-17 07:49:54 AM  

DemonEater: Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed


Were they mistrials? I didn't see it in TFA, but that doesn't mean I might've missed it...
 
2013-01-17 07:53:58 AM  

Mock26: Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?


WTF is it worth since our own government doesn't even follow the Supreme Law of the Land? You expect our juries to?
 
2013-01-17 07:55:10 AM  

liam76:

Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.


How do you determine if someone is a willing participant? If they are coerced, mislead, under mental distress, or under the influence of any drugs does that negate consent?
 
2013-01-17 07:55:57 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.


Your logic is flawed, because the concept of consent can only be applied to people. Animals, regardless of how we interact with them, are considered chattel.

If consent were able to be applied to animals, then someone having sex with animals is an infinitesimally minor problem when compared with the now huge problem that we have animal slavery, animal murder, etc.

In otherwords, I think being able to string up a pig by its legs, slice its throat with a blade, allow the blood to drain from its body as it dies, only then to harvest its flesh for us to eat... is slightly more of a consent problem than some creeper in a barn. The non-consensual forced-impregnation of animals is probably a bigger concern too. Unless you consider the fact that every single turkey sold in stores is the product of forced impregnation...

As I said, trying to use the concept of consent in a discussion regarding animals is just showing that you don't really understand what you are trying to say.
 
2013-01-17 07:56:44 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.


Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.
 
2013-01-17 07:57:24 AM  
s8.postimage.org
 
2013-01-17 07:57:52 AM  

xanadian: Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


Of course, with that all being said, all you need is a super genius prosecutor to go after WBC and claim that their radically-religious public displays also are a form of "obscene."
 
2013-01-17 08:04:48 AM  
thatprettyfitchick.com
 
2013-01-17 08:07:16 AM  

xanadian: Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


All I can think is what does this say about our society where in order to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend this guy?
 
2013-01-17 08:09:23 AM  

Carth: liam76:

Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.

How do you determine if someone is a willing participant? If they are coerced, mislead, under mental distress, or under the influence of any drugs does that negate consent?


Holy shiat, how does anyone determine if anyone is a willing participant?

How the fark do I know if the bus driver driving my bus isn't being coerced, misled, under mental distress (duress I think you mean?)
 
2013-01-17 08:14:13 AM  

xanadian: DemonEater: Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed

Were they mistrials? I didn't see it in TFA, but that doesn't mean I might've missed it...


The first two were declared mistrials. In the first trial it was discovered that the presiding judge had posted some freaky stuff of his own on the internet, so a mistrial was declared. The second trial the jury was deadlocked.
 
2013-01-17 08:14:49 AM  

thisisarepeat: Next they came for the gun nuts


Well, the problem is that never actually happened.
 
Displayed 50 of 419 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report