[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comparing apples to oranges



Excellent point. You can't compare someone using drugs to someone supporting child porn. No one other than the user is directly affects by using drugs, while by nature, an innocent child is affected by child porn - as well as the disturbed user.

-gern

From: "Sigel, James J"
Subject: Woke up Free but Branded by his Fans Too?

I mean, anyone
here ever smoke a joint?  Snort a line of coke before?  If you apply the
above accusation and responsibility on Pete, then YOU are just as guilty
for supporting the illegal drug trade, which in case you didn't know,
also has financial ties to child porn, prostitution, murder, etc, etc.
Your analogy is flawed. You are comparing apples and oranges.
The purchase of a substance for your personal use, that harms no one other
than your self (wait, I'm harshing out......give me a
sec.........................................................................
.......................................CACK!......................ok, I'm
back), vs. the purchase of a substance for your personal use where innocent
children have been directly harmed.
It's not even close.

If you want to argue about the indirect harm of those in the drug world, you
must first acknowledge that there would be no harm if said drugs were simply
legalized. Thus, it's really the illegality as deemed by the government
that is causing the harm.
If pedophilia were deemed legal, the children would *still* be harmed.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail