On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:46:16 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>Dissenter wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:46:30 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>>> It is a deliberate act against the law as
>>> much as driving past a speed camera is a deliberate act. There are no
>>> other higher principles at stake. They want this form of entertainment.
>>> This form of entertainment isn't available to them legally. So they
>>> choose to break the law.
>>
>> That's like saying that . is just a form of entertainment. It's much
>> more than that, unless you are too old to remember. Whether you regard
>> paedophilia to be a 'perversion' of the . drive (as homo.uality
>> was not so long ago in this country) is beside the point - . is ..
>> What can substitute for it? Well, . is one possibility, but that is
>> banned too.
>>
>I would suggest that *nothing* can substitute for it, not for very long,
>that is. Which is rather the problem, isn't it?
So do you withdraw your repeated remarks that child . is merely
'entertainment' that can reasonably be forsworn?
--
Dissenter |