Quote:
Originally posted by FATPad
HAHA
Same stupid argument always used.
Please explain to me how selling underwear in the sears catalog is the same as using minors to sell porn on porn sites?
Are you really unable to see a difference between selling underwear and selling porn using minors?
Why do people always bring underwear sales into a discussion about porn and using minors to sell porn?
|
The original message in this thread talked about non-nude pictures, not "porn", so your argument is silly.
When the LA Times publishes pictures of little girls in their underwear, it's not considered pornography - and rightfully so.
Likewise, if a website publishes pictures of girls in underwear, bikinis, short shorts etc, it is also not pornography.
The fact that people may download these pictures and masturbate doesn't change the fact that they are just harmless shots of CLOTHED girls.
The arguments about the context of the pictures (department store ads vs "porn" sites) is ridiculous, since it attempts to criminalize the thoughts and motivations of a person, rather than the actions.