So you’re just going to completely gloss over her pro-pedophilic statements that her thesis asserting that CP shouldn’t be censored because animated depictions that aren’t real CP get caught in the fray?

In her essay Rapp argues against the censorship of CP in general, particularly with regards to pressures upon Japanese culture, because animated depictions are caught up in the fray. As if the only means of addressing censorship of not real shit is to excuse the propagation of some of the most vile child abuse in the…

So because she’s a woman, she should just side with other women because “woman”?

Legally, in the moral eyes of the court, it’s the contract—the corporation—that comes first.

Most lower court decisions can be put up to the appellate courts. I don’t think this case would be an exception.

This argument is so fucking tired.

I think that the failure of the assault weapons ban in the 90s is a fair amount of evidence.

“Not only does it escalate any situation you try to use it in (most home invaders aren’t looking to kill people but rather just want your stuff)“

The military uses such classification to address actual select-fire (see fully automatic) “assault” rifles.

I can’t say I agree. The US Olympic hockey team in 1980 is a perfect example of how things change, even when there is what people consider an unmovable object (the Russian national team) sitting atop the world stage in a given event.

You’re really going to compare a stable nation like Saddam’s to the utter chaos, and literally failed state, that is Syria? Assad is relying on a massive amount of outside support simply to keep ISIS at bay and the kurds from proving a real threat.

It’s pure regressivism at its finest.

Obama has done more work with executive order than any other president before him. Add to the fact that he’s now involved in several unilateral military engagements without ANY sort of congressional approval, and you have a Democratic leader operating outside of the typical constitutional constraints.

You act like the dude never ruled in favor of individual civil rights.

You used athiesm to justify you pleasure in the death of another human being, as if it denotes some magically impartiality because you don’t believe in the afterlife.

You’re kidding right? Syria obviously has to approve such a mission, regardless of their involvement using chemical weapons.

So first you question the use and when that’s proven wrong, you question the reports as a mechanism of western media slant and treachery.

That’s patently false. The first page of search options provides several different sources.

So when literal atrocities are occurring, like the Rwandan genocide, or the Armenian Genocide, or the Serbian genocide, or the use of chemical weapons, etc, etc, etc., the rest of the world should just sit by and let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, perish at the hands of literally evil people?

Probably bait, but hell, I’m bored. I’ll play you’re little game.