No Subject

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

tzeruch@ceddec.com righteously writes:

> Looking at synthetic child porn may be purely a thought crime, but it
> involves breaking a lot of societal taboos.  If someone does not have the
> self-restraint to not look at mere pictures, will they have the restraint
> to avoid comitting actual crimes?

> Although you can argue that people may be able to look without touching,
> the reason they are looking in the first place involves a release of the
> beast within.  How many such people are we willing to trust to keep that
> beast on the chain.  The law is currently structured to answer "none" to
> this question, and this may be the proper answer.

Hear, hear, brother!

Also, all womenfolk should be required to cover up their entire bodies
as well as their faces whenever they're in public or in contact with any
male above the age of puberty, even unto their male relatives.  If one
of these men doesn't have the self-restraint to not look at the woman
in the first place, will he have the restraint to keep from raping her?

After all, the reason they are looking in the first place involves a
release of the beast within.  How many such people are we willing to
trust to keep that beast on the chain?  "None" is again the proper
answer of course.


> This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian

No, of course not.  How could anyone have thought so?


Praise God, brother.


Scrupulus