all 8 comments

[–]Bompf 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is just going to put children in danger. Fucks sake.

[–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly my thoughts! People satisfying paraphilias isn't the problem; rather, doing it through rape is, whether directly or by proxy, but this does not do this through rape…

[–]Bompf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Had to read the end of the sentence a few times...

Only moral police want to ban dolls, so you can bet feminists and christ-cucks will be first in line to do it.

[–]the-ham-bummer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do racing videogames make streets safer (because people play instead of driving) or unsafe (because people learn stuff and then apply them IRL)? I dunno, am conflicted about this.

[–]Bompf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What you could do is examine the strong correlation between the availability of pornography and reduced levels of sexual assault if you want to compare apples to apples. Not that I'm strong supporter of pornography, it's just that the study has been done, and the evidence appears to be on the side of porn if you're solely looking at the reduction in criminal behavior.

Dolls eliminate a portion of pedo behavior. Don't see how they're a problem, and they probably do society good.

[–]the-ham-bummer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

personally I see no principle which would prevent a guy from putting his peepee in a whatever shaped inanimate object, and this sets a precedent, too. OTOH from a memetic/propaganda POV, since the movement to legalize pedophilia is real, I am convinced those dolls would have been used in nasty ways, so, I am not shedding tears over this.

[–]dcjogger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does anyone get the feeling that anyone supporting the police state now is a paid NSA shill?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

[–]dcjogger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty-five years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

Nanny state laws don't make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don't need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don't need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a mobile phone is illegal. People don't investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

Do laws even work? Heroin is illegal, but do people still use heroin?

Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren't there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn't people educate or talk to people who bother them? Can't people boycott businesses they hate? Couldn't people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn't people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn't attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn't mean actions have no consequences.

If there is no victim, there is no crime.

We don't need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

Where does it end?

If one state can have self-serve gas stations, why can't every state have them? If sodas were legal 20 years ago, why can't they be legal now?

Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn't banning everything sound like the opposite of liberty?

Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don't people realize that freedom is a two way street?

If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

Good men don't need laws. Bad men won't obey laws.

Who wants to live in a prison?

Think. Question everything.