Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
I've already explained my stance, a number of times. You're just bored and wanting to engage in pointless discussion by going over points that have already been made.. sounds like an old girlfriend.
Supporting something in theory, and not reality, is not supporting it at all.
Baby fucking pedo porn stories have no value other then to get pedos off and disgust the curious. Our current laws state that if it involves minors and is obscene, that it's against the law. This content is, and will be, judged obscene. My stance is simple, and has been stated yet again.
|
Supporting theory is not supporting it at all? What kind of nonsense is that?
This is a *discussion*. In a discussion it's about *arguments*. "You don't really mean what you're saying" is a really, really crappy argument. In fact, it isn't even an argument, since it doesn't actually touch the discussion. It's a pathetic and irrelevant ad hominem.
Let me say this: I am really in favour of free speech. I fully support your right to write up elaborate stories involving fetuses getting raped by shitting dogs and gay horses. I support that right. Not in theory, in practice.
My argumentation for my position is, necessarily, a theoretical one. After all, that's what argumentation is - defending a specific theoretical framework of reality over another one.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of arguments
So, perhaps, it shouldn't be a surprise that you still haven't given a single relevant argument for your position. It is rather shocking, however, to see you defend your lack of arguments for your position by an attack on the very concept of arguments.
Your "stance" is just that: a position, with no relevant logical foundation, devoid of context and meaning. It is based solely on emotion, not on rational thought.