• Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your single point is “trying to stop people only makes them do it more”, than no, it’s not a “leap”. That invalidates the very idea of having laws in the first place.

    And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I just stated a fact, not my opinion on it.

      The leap was you assuming that i think that means there should be no laws. Which, as you can see by my previous response, you were wrong about.

      Edit: in fact. The leap was you taking a statement of fact and going straight to the extreme of “there should be no laws” as opposed to every step along the way you could have visited first. Like relaxing laws, heavy to light regulations, just not this one particular law etc all the way to, eventually, no laws at all for anything.

      Thats a fucking leap my friend.

    • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We didn’t say this about everything (although it is true that some kinds of people are attracted to anything forbidden). We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

        I don’t see any such qualifiers. Do you?

        • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Semi-Hemi-Demigod said:

          It’s not that. It’s that if you tell a horny teenager that there’s pictures of naked people somewhere they’ll move heaven and earth to get to it.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t responding to them, so how does that matter?

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

      Whatever you’re arguing for or against, you’re arguing like a drunk uncle. You’re taking it to an extreme that it’s obvious no one actually intended, and then arguing against that extreme like it was the original point.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not arguing against extremes, I’m arguing against a bad argument. And I’m not drunk, I only wish I were.