I was reading a standard celebrity obituary article the other day. It was an actor nobody really remembers and it mentioned his family and the shows he was on.
In the comments someone said something like:
I don't know why you had to mention his husband!!! Why does everything have to be so woke?
Sure, pal, if he had married a woman, everything would be ok, but since he had a husband, we need to pretend that he doesn't exist around you so you don't feel icky?
This is the ONLY thing I expected here.
Yeah, but that's like a LOT of work, man.
This one gets me all the time:
Better wash my hands before I start cooking.
I should also pee before I get started cooking
Guess I'm washing my hands again.
Right. I get you, and I agree, and I don't think Buffalox was contradicting you by essentially saying "even if they technically aren't the same, your government may still count it as the same."
There's two feet of snow out here, so I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to try to figure it out.
Wait I thought it was Abraham Lincoln, or maybe Albert Einstein.
"HE ASSAILED MY DRAWERS..."
I see what you did there.
Oh yeah. We are definitely in one of the fucked up timelines that makes people think "yeah, right. Like THAT could ever happen!"
Hi there, I'm a random passerby listening in on your argument!
You both make great points, and I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding here, because I don't see why this is still going back and forth.
I agree with Free, that if an AI creates an image of CSAM, that there is no child being abused and that it is not anywhere near the same level of evil as actual photographs of CSAM. Different people will have different opinions on that, and that's fine, it's a topic that deserves debate.
Buffalox, is saying that your personal stance on the topic doesn't really matter if the law has deemed it so. Which is also correct. When we talk about drugs, some people do not consider cannabis to be "a drug", others consider caffeine and sugar to be drugs, but no matter where you stand, there IS a defined list of what you can get arrested for, and no matter how I try to spin the "secret medicinal advantages of meth" (that's a joke, there are none.) it's not going to keep me out of prison.
You're both making valid arguments that don't necessarily conflict with each other.
You take that back about Kenny Rodgers!!
I get what you're saying about gambling and pieces of shit, but you also say, "but not THIS kind of gambler." I used to play a ton of online poker, but there was no real money. I WAS gambling, and there were in-game prizes and prestige to win, but I think we'd both agree that probably doesn't make me a piece of shit.
So, let's put a finer point in it.
A would say that gambling is ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE to pieces of shit. The idea of getting rich by doing nothing, is going to sound REALLY good to the same people who would run a scam on your grandma. Throw in the fact that deception is a key element of poker, and you've created a game that gives an advantage to con men.
You're probably right that you'd find a higher percentage of pieces of shit in a group of gamblers when compared to non gamblers, but It's not the gambling that makes them shitty, they already were, and if gambling didn't exist, they'd probably just be finding other ways to scam their way to riches.
Doesn't sound familiar, but maybe.