Re: Nasties
You're the perfect illustration of why he's right: You don't even parse his sentence, you just register that he somehow doesn't share your blind hatred, so he has to be a disgusting pervert, doesn't he.
Really? I parsed his sentence just fine - he doesn't agree with controls on child sex abuse material because he believes that it's a freedom of choice issue for the individual. Which, of course, it's not - as sexually abusing children is a universal taboo.
His lack of a response (if you really aren't him) says enough for me...
The issue discussed here are the potential false positives, accidental or malicious, and this clearly went way over your head.
See above. The person I replied to was referring to controlling child sex abuse material in general. I'm well aware of what the article referred to, which seems to have gone over *your* head.
Let's say I planted some incriminating evidence on your computer and gave the police an anonymous tip about this sicko (you). From your vehemence, I gather you will fully agree to be chemically castrated, imprisoned and ostracized from society, just in case it might spare a child?
Letting your imagination run wild there, aren't you? I don't think you'd have the skills or the knowledge to pull it off AC, but if you did somehow manage it what makes you think that I wouldn't be able to disprove the allegation forensically?
Why would I "fully agree to be chemically castrated, imprisoned and ostracized from society" for something I hadn't done in *your* hypothetical situation? Y u knot raed gud? That's a moronic assumption, and you "gather" wrong.