So what if one of those kiddie porn pics was of your son, daughter, niece, nephew, brother or sister? Would it not turn your stomach to think of the FBI continuing to distribute this material?

It is unethical to distribute the child pornography because they're proliferating the distribution of material that was the direct result of the exploitation of children. It further victimizes the children and allows for the images to be distributed elsewhere, out of the FBI's control.
Shame on them.

I, personally, think this crosses a bridge that supplying drugs in a sting does not. The difference being the so-called victims being consenting adults or not.
In a way, however you turn it around, except for gang-violence etc, selling and taking drugs is a victimless crime. I'm saying this fully realising that drugs…

Distributing child porn is a victimless crime?

Thanks for the entertainment.

Aaaaand there goes the dismiss button. Ciao.

Fuck you, jackass. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

HIS comment was the humorous one.

No, you don't understand the concept of "humor".

It's becoming apparent that you're disturbed. Perhaps some anger management sessions would help you. Good luck.

I believe you've described it exactly as it was. I don't believe he was divine and I don't believe he walked on water. Like many before and after him, he was killed for standing against corruption and cruelty and promoting kindness and decency.

I like how you get hung up on minor grammatical errors and somehow think that is some sort of a win for you. I mean, you say that it isn't, but it clearly is. Are you really that desperate to one-up somebody? If you were even half as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be here picking petty fights and correcting…

Now you can add, "grammar nazi" to "smug" and "smart-ass" on your resume.

You've got nothing to teach me, pal.

Pretty sure an 11-year old would be more likely to use "fucking", as he or she might feel like a real badass doing so. That 11-year old might also make threats on the internet, knowing full well that there will be little to no real-life consequences for it. Reminds you of someone? With your sweaty grip on logic and…

as much as I hate to lower myself to your level...

Yea, I don't really think he is going to go around hitting people for taking pictures of their food with their glasses. He is just stating his dislike for the inevitable trend, in a hyperbolic manner. I thought that was obvious.

Sometimes people create things that are so beautifully innovative that they are worthy of the expenditure of both money and natural resources. Some do a fantastic job of replacing many things in a way that's so beautifully elegant that you can't help but need to buy them.

We DO impose restrictions on automobiles. I'd be thrilled to apply all the same ones to guns - you have to take a class, pass a test, receive a license in person via a government office, acquire insurance, apply a unique government ID to your gun (akin to a license plate), and renew your license once a year. …

No matter how creative or seductive or well disguised they are, advertisements are meant to do one thing and one thing only: Sell products. The point was never to "change the conversation." So there's no epiphany or deeper understanding anyone needs to arrive to. Because the Dove ads were never an honest…