no child porn is illegal because it harms children. In fact, laws prohibiting "virtual" child porn (animated or digital depictions of fake children) have only been upheld under the first amendment because they were found to contribute to the demand for actual child porn.

why do you like underscores so much?

DING DING YOU WIN. It took a few comments for someone to see what i was going for.

Logical defense of why media coverage is proportionately balanced, in line with the article = troll....Interesting equation. Please show your work though.

When that party is actually vindicating the rights of victims instead of oppressing them, then yes!

I'm okay with this. As a country we should be focused on what is basically a rape of all of our civil rights by the republican party. If that means a few actual rapes don't get coverage that is okay with me.

Because the disagreement isn't whether what UPS did to her was morally wrong (I think even most monsters can agree that its messed up). The disagreement is over whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires work accommodations. For better reporting, see http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…

tell us how you really feel

this is gawker media...if its not anti-racism rage it doesnt get clicks

well that ended pretty quick

Given the threat cancer represents to all women, I hope these comments don't turn into something ugly and hateful.

You think your reaction was bad? This player absolutely lost it when shown the clip:

haha

I think the myth is that pulling out isn't effective, but the truth is that its much more effective then you'd think, "when done correctly." If done improperly it's ineffective, but the same goes for condoms and birth control. When done correctly its only a tiny bit less effective then condoms or birth control at…

I appreciate it when POC can disagree and not make it about "being a traitor."

I lived in and have many friends in South Car. The number of "Uncle Tom" and "house slave" slurs I saw on my twitter and Facebook just broke my heart. Disagreeing respectully, as you did here with just a little good-natured snark, is the…

Since it's the House that serves as the representatives of the people, and the Senate is intended to serve as representatives of states qua states (thats why every state, no matter the size gets 2) I think it make sense that it doesnt mirror the US population that closely.

I think its the other way around actually. Laypeople are barely cognizant of the process of amending laws at all, and much less are aware of specific penalties for crimes. When a layperson says "This person should be disbarred" its because they literally think that that's how the law works. That what they perceived…

Riiight, but when you use "should" in the prescriptive sense with laws, it is much more commonly used to mean that "X law should be applied in this way" not "x law should actually be y."

It would actually be weird for me to say, "that criminal should get the death penalty" when I really mean that whatever crime the…

Just let him/her have this....Some people don't understand how laws work. They just want to use the justice and professional responsibility systems to "punish" people they think are "bad"
You won't convince this person they are wrong because they are too dumb to even consider that a possibility

A $66 dollar dip on a 200 check is nearly 30%! How is that ridiculously small??