| Ron Johnson 2004-12-01, 4:28 am |
| On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 05:16 +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> Alexander Schmehl wrote:
>
> for more info on legal aspects of pornography check out wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornog...Legal_situation
>
>
> I agree with you there.
>
> Even though, i think this whole issue has been dealt with a million
> times in this thread i must say this:
>
> I think this is all about hypocrisy. I can say without a doubt that all
> women in this world have seen a naked woman. And i seriously doubt that
> there are many men out there that haven't seen a naked woman in some
> point of their lives.
Civilization survives on daily little hypocrisies. Maybe University
students can live a hypocrisy-free life (I know that I came close),
the messy world of families, in-laws taxes, jobs, petty jealousies,
etc pretty much ensures that the rest of us are hypocrites on a
daily basis:
"No, honey, you don't look fat in that dress."
"Son, that's the best picture of a house I've ever seen."
"Baby, that's the best picture of a family I've ever seen."
"Sure, I'd love to come visit you Monday night, instead of watching
Stargate."
etc, etc.
> But as for this issue, this can all be solved by replacing the babe in
> the images with a sheep, in the first pic it has all it's wool, the next
> it's partially sheared and finally fully sheared. (in case of
> overheating the image could change in to a roast)
>
> I hope nobody objects to animal nudity.
You know, my son would think it's great...
But vegetarians (there *must* be some vegan D-Ds) would strenuously
oppose to images of such "horrible" treatment of animals.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
The difference between drunken sailors and Congressmen is that
drunken sailors spend their own money.
|