Congressman fights to ban sick ‘child sex dolls’

Is that asking too much for you?

 

No it isn't.

 

Be specific

 

You act as if everything is black and white with no grey areas in the middle.

And you think the highly religious are "consistent"? Just ask the various divergent in Christianity, the hundreds of denominations which share some agreement yet hold rather wide differences in other areas.

Just ask those highly religious people who voted for Trump, a depraved man who probably thinks that Jesus was a sucker since he required his followers to care for the poor and injured.

So if you want to discuss "consistency", I don't think bringing up religion is a good starting point for your argument.

 

It is your total lack of knowledge and wisdom on who God is and how He sees you that causes apathy or rebellion amongst your kind. Your joke, for instance. Prove it.

And if you cannot prove it, then how tragic to make light of it all, i.e. the whole afterlife and judgment matters.

 

Prostitution is illegal primarily because of religious zealots who think that by imposing their mythical-based version of "morality" that the thing they are banishing as illegal and immoral will just go away to be a sin no more.

The very admission you have nothing in common with an atheist is further proof of the insular insanity a zealot possess which calls into question their judgment. You expect me to take you seriously when all you are doing is projecting your fears and sick fantasies onto others?

"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."​

If zealots were to just follow their own scriptures, there wouldn't be almost 2,000 years of horror at the behest of their god.

 

I have absolutely no problem with you believing in a sky zombie god. I'm not a militant atheist. I understand some people need their religion like Linus needs his blanket. Where I draw the line is when you try to smother others with that same dirty old blanket.

 

What product would you do that to next? That's how this sort of thing always works. Either ban them or don't, but what you propose in an ongoing invasion of privacy without a criminal conviction. That's more dangerous than any doll, regardless of what it represents.

 

Preach it brother. Those dolls should be made to look 18. Then your God-appointed King of America can grab 'em by the *****.

 

This whole issue is like so many others in the culture war...the quest for Thought Police.

 

Is it a crime to be predisposed to steal even if you don't steal? If so, what does Jesus prescribe as the punishment for that disposition?

 

Good question! It's free trade and it's sex. Which on are you against? I suspect both.

 

That is why one should watch what it is they are willing and trying to do to the lowest dirtbags around. Everyone hates sex offenders, everyone is willing to inflict more punishment towards them, but once a thing is done, the government need only find the next target and so on and so forth...

 

Exactly!

A poor dirtbag is no match for a dirtbag armed with religion.

 

that's kind of like asking where the limit to my right to swing my fist is. It's at your nose isn't it?

Seems like a drop dead simple view of it that anyone can understand.

the limits are already set. Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose.

you have to first prove something is immoral. How we Define whether or not something is moral this country and in this culture is if it's intentional and it has some effect on human well-being then we can judge it is moral or immoral.

I posit is that you lack all semblance of morality and substituted in religious obedience which in and of itself is immoral.

So you don't have to compromise anything you have to first understand what morality is.

do you mean the law? Yes. If you mean some sort of cosmic deity no they don't deities do not interfere with human life.

One must first understand if there are any a negative externalities.

within one sentence you already fell into cognitive dissonance and lost the argument.

Mental illness is not intentional so it cannot be judged as immoral immoral.

this is more of your absurd cognitive dissonance.

Applying that exact same logic to religion consistency demands that if Christian Bakers are exempt from laws regarding discrimination then Voodoo priests and devil worshippers should be exempt from lawsuits regarding murder because human sacrifice is part of their religion.

I won't have a comment about that but you lack just a basic understanding of morality.

 

Link, please...

 

This is turning into the most sanctimonious hypocritical thread ever!

 

gross

 

Sorry. I don't see (from your link) where it's stated or even implied that it is perfectly acceptable for both men and women to have sex with three year-old kids.

I'm guessing that a link to that claim wouldn't be much different than the one you put up about sex with 3yo's.

(And I'm not a Christian, BTW.)

 

I honestly think that people who believe in "lords and saviors" are mentally ill and I have done since I was about six. I remember looking at a bowing congregation in a church and thinking: "what the **** are these people doing?".

The difference between me and you is that I just don't care what they do as long as nobody is being harmed by it. I certainly don't want them banned. Some of them seem like quite nice people to me. We just have a different way of looking at the world.

This thread just seems to be another attempt to conflate gays with pedophiles.

I'm not sure you are as disturbed by the thought of child sex dolls as you are with the thought of two legal adult males having sex with each other. The fact that you just can't avoid drawing the comparison and focus on the issue you, yourself, brought up is noteworthy

 

conflate gays with pedophiles?

Nah, numbers do not lie and those males who enjoy themselves some gay-sex are 14x more likely to be a pedophile than males who engage in heterosexual sex

You can hate the numbers all that you want; you can personally attack me because you hate the numbers. It doesn't change the facts.

With respect to the dolls, re-read my posts and you'll see that as a free-market person, I feel that if someone wants one, then get one.

In the end, we all are judged by our Lord and Savior.

 

It seems like a legitimate solution to pedophilia.

Child sex is illegal because it clearly harms the child, not because it's "icky".

Child porn is illegal because it clearly harms the child in it, not because it's "icky".

_____________

Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition determined that virtual child pornography is protected by the first amendment. Why? Because the government is not allowed to prosecute speech because it might make unlawful action more likely without imminently inciting it.

I imagine the same would apply here. I don't see why it wouldn't. They're not hurting anyone by using child dolls. On the contrary, we know that people don't magically stop being paedophiles, this could be a viable alternative to sexual abuse.

On the same basis it would be legal to have these robots actively simulate rape. The state cannot prosecute based on the conjecture that such action might encourage illicit action at some indefinite future date.

 

It's still icky and gives you the dry heaves.