Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!
Ozymandias:
No, Fraser
FUCK YOU
Alex C:
What Ozy said, but not really joking.
David_Dovey:
--- Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 18 Aug 2010, 17:38 ---Incorrect. It's not endangering anything right now, because....well, obviously it won't change anything in the present. It is, however, a slippery slope that could be cited in future court cases when some whackjob decides he wants to restrict circulation of Sense & Sensibilty to only people who have 9 toes. Sound ridiculous? So does this.
--- End quote ---
You do realise slippery slope arguments are very, very dumb though, right?
Like, it's many of the fucktards in the Supreme Court that support the ban on gay marriage because if we let two dudes (it's always two dudes in these examples, by the way) get married, then what's next? Marrying a horse? A hurf durf doopily doo.
Scandanavian War Machine:
On the one hand, I do sort of agree with you, but on the other hand that's not really the same at all.
This would be setting a legal precedent that people could cite in the future when trying to pass laws that disagree with the constitution. That's a pretty legitimate slippery slope argument, I think.
Also, from a legal standpoint, there is pretty much no way you could convince a judge that marrying a horse, or a piece of string should be allowable because at some point gay marriage became legal. Whereas, it's not that much of a stretch to think that in a future where this kind of law passes, people attempting to keep Jane Eyre out of the hands of kids could cite this law and the judge would say "well, you have a point."
also:
--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 20 Aug 2010, 13:30 ---Like, it's many of the fucktards in the Supreme Court that support the ban on gay marriage because if we let two dudes (it's always two dudes in these examples, by the way) get married, then what's next? Marrying a horse? A hurf durf doopily doo.
--- End quote ---
So if someone stupid likes a band then that band becomes stupid? I don't understand your logic here. Attributing abritary charactiersitcs to a thing because of the people that happen to use it or something....doesn't really follow.
Does any of that make sense? I have a massive headache right now so I feel like I"m explaining myself pretty well, but it's hard to be certain.
Ozymandias:
Of course, if the law sticks, you then have a precedent of censoring and banning a medium for those who would argue for other such laws for other media. Even if the law is created by those who would not consider it to have merit, once it is made, all you have to do is argue that it, in fact, does(and it, in fact, DOES) and you can make it broader.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version